Effect of Uncertainty-Aware AI Models on Pharmacists’ Reaction Time and Decision-Making in a Web-Based Mock Medication Verification Task: Randomized Controlled Trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI)-based clinical decision support systems are increasingly used in health care. Uncertainty-aware AI presents the model's confidence in its decision alongside its prediction, whereas black-box AI only provides a prediction. Little is known about how this type of AI affects health care providers' work performance and reaction time. Objective: This study aimed to determine the effects of black-box and uncertainty-aware AI advice on pharmacist decision-making and reaction time. Methods: Recruitment emails were sent to pharmacists through professional listservs describing a web-based, crossover, randomized controlled trial. Participants were randomized to the black-box AI or uncertainty-aware AI condition in a 1:1 manner. Participants completed 100 mock verification tasks with AI help and 100 without AI help. The order of no help and AI help was randomized. Participants were exposed to correct and incorrect prescription fills, where the correct decision was to "accept" or "reject," respectively. AI help provided correct (79%) or incorrect (21%) advice. Reaction times, participant decisions, AI advice, and AI help type were recorded for each verification. Likelihood ratio tests compared means across the three categories of AI type for each level of AI correctness. Results: A total of 30 participants provided complete datasets. An equal number of participants were in each AI condition. Participants' decision-making performance and reaction times differed across the 3 conditions. Accurate AI recommendations resulted in the rejection of the incorrect drug 96.1% and 91.8% of the time for uncertainty-aware AI and black-box AI respectively, compared with 81.2% without AI help. Correctly dispensed medications were accepted at rates of 99.2% with black-box help, 94.1% with uncertainty-aware AI help, and 94.6% without AI help. Uncertainty-aware AI protected against bad AI advice to approve an incorrectly filled medication compared with black-box AI (83.3% vs 76.7%). When the AI recommended rejecting a correctly filled medication, pharmacists without AI help had a higher rate of correctly accepting the medication (94.6%) compared with uncertainty-aware AI help (86.2%) and black-box AI help (81.2%). Uncertainty-aware AI resulted in shorter reaction times than black-box AI and no AI help except in the scenario where "AI rejects the correct drug." Black-box AI did not lead to reduced reaction times compared with pharmacists acting alone. Conclusions: Pharmacists' performance and reaction times varied by AI type and AI accuracy. Overall, uncertainty-aware AI resulted in faster decision-making and acted as a safeguard against bad AI advice to approve a misfilled medication. Conversely, black-box AI had the longest reaction times, and user performance degraded in the presence of bad AI advice. However, uncertainty-aware AI could result in unnecessary double-checks, but it is preferred over false negative advice, where patients receive the wrong medication. These results highlight the importance of well-designed AI that addresses users' needs, enhances performance, and avoids overreliance on AI.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,011 | 0,027 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,011 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».