Impact of artificial intelligence on pathologists’ decisions: an experiment

Author:

Meyer Julien1ORCID,Khademi April2,Têtu Bernard3,Han Wencui4,Nippak Pria1,Remisch David1

Affiliation:

1. School of Health Services Management, Ted Rogers School of Management , Toronto, Ontario, Canada

2. Department of Electrical, Computer, and Biomedical Engineering, Ryerson University , Toronto, Ontario, Canada

3. Départment de biologie médicale, Université Laval , Québec City, Quebec, Canada

4. Department of Business administration, Gies College of Business, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign , Champaign, Illinois, USA

Abstract

Abstract Objective The accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine and in pathology in particular has made major progress but little is known on how much these algorithms will influence pathologists’ decisions in practice. The objective of this paper is to determine the reliance of pathologists on AI and to investigate whether providing information on AI impacts this reliance. Materials and Methods The experiment using an online survey design. Under 3 conditions, 116 pathologists and pathology students were tasked with assessing the Gleason grade for a series of 12 prostate biopsies: (1) without AI recommendations, (2) with AI recommendations, and (3) with AI recommendations accompanied by information about the algorithm itself, specifically algorithm accuracy rate and algorithm decision-making process. Results Participant responses were significantly more accurate with the AI decision aids than without (92% vs 87%, odds ratio 13.30, P < .01). Unexpectedly, the provision of information on the algorithm made no significant difference compared to AI without information. The reliance on AI correlated with general beliefs on AI’s usefulness but not with particular assessments of the AI tool offered. Decisions were made faster when AI was provided. Discussion These results suggest that pathologists are willing to rely on AI regardless of accuracy or explanations. Generalization beyond the specific tasks and explanations provided will require further studies. Conclusion This study suggests that the factors that influence the reliance on AI differ in practice from beliefs expressed by clinicians in surveys. Implementation of AI in prospective settings should take individual behaviors into account.

Funder

Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Health Informatics

Cited by 14 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3