Do as AI say: susceptibility in deployment of clinical decision-aids
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
- Candidate categories
- Metaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
- Consensus categories
- none
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: ObservationalConsensus signal: none
- Genre
- Candidate signal: EmpiricalConsensus signal: Empirical
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.532
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 1.000
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
- Teacher spread
- 0.322 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
score_only:v0-immature-baseline· verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) models for decision support have been developed for clinical settings such as radiology, but little work evaluates the potential impact of such systems. In this study, physicians received chest X-rays and diagnostic advice, some of which was inaccurate, and were asked to evaluate advice quality and make diagnoses. All advice was generated by human experts, but some was labeled as coming from an AI system. As a group, radiologists rated advice as lower quality when it appeared to come from an AI system; physicians with less task-expertise did not. Diagnostic accuracy was significantly worse when participants received inaccurate advice, regardless of the purported source. This work raises important considerations for how advice, AI and non-AI, should be deployed in clinical environments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
The record
- Venue
- npj Digital Medicine
- Topic
- Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Field
- Medicine
- Canadian institutions
- Vector InstituteUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
- Funders
- Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of CanadaCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchVector InstituteMicrosoft Research
- Keywords
- Advice (programming)Medical diagnosisDecision aidsSoftware deploymentTask (project management)Quality (philosophy)Work (physics)PsychologyMedicineMedical educationComputer scienceMedical physicsPathologyEngineeringAlternative medicine
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes