Human Factors and Technological Characteristics Influencing the Interaction of Medical Professionals With Artificial Intelligence–Enabled Clinical Decision Support Systems: Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The digitization and automation of diagnostics and treatments promise to alter the quality of health care and improve patient outcomes, whereas the undersupply of medical personnel, high workload on medical professionals, and medical case complexity increase. Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) have been proven to help medical professionals in their everyday work through their ability to process vast amounts of patient information. However, comprehensive adoption is partially disrupted by specific technological and personal characteristics. With the rise of artificial intelligence (AI), CDSSs have become an adaptive technology with human-like capabilities and are able to learn and change their characteristics over time. However, research has not reflected on the characteristics and factors essential for effective collaboration between human actors and AI-enabled CDSSs. OBJECTIVE: Our study aims to summarize the factors influencing effective collaboration between medical professionals and AI-enabled CDSSs. These factors are essential for medical professionals, management, and technology designers to reflect on the adoption, implementation, and development of an AI-enabled CDSS. METHODS: We conducted a literature review including 3 different meta-databases, screening over 1000 articles and including 101 articles for full-text assessment. Of the 101 articles, 7 (6.9%) met our inclusion criteria and were analyzed for our synthesis. RESULTS: We identified the technological characteristics and human factors that appear to have an essential effect on the collaboration of medical professionals and AI-enabled CDSSs in accordance with our research objective, namely, training data quality, performance, explainability, adaptability, medical expertise, technological expertise, personality, cognitive biases, and trust. Comparing our results with those from research on non-AI CDSSs, some characteristics and factors retain their importance, whereas others gain or lose relevance owing to the uniqueness of human-AI interactions. However, only a few (1/7, 14%) studies have mentioned the theoretical foundations and patient outcomes related to AI-enabled CDSSs. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides a comprehensive overview of the relevant characteristics and factors that influence the interaction and collaboration between medical professionals and AI-enabled CDSSs. Rather limited theoretical foundations currently hinder the possibility of creating adequate concepts and models to explain and predict the interrelations between these characteristics and factors. For an appropriate evaluation of the human-AI collaboration, patient outcomes and the role of patients in the decision-making process should be considered.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
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.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".