Out with AI, in with the psychiatrist: a preference for human-derived clinical decision support in depression care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) are enabling the development of clinical support tools (CSTs) in psychiatry to facilitate the review of patient data and inform clinical care. To promote their successful integration and prevent over-reliance, it is important to understand how psychiatrists will respond to information provided by AI-based CSTs, particularly if it is incorrect. We conducted an experiment to examine psychiatrists' perceptions of AI-based CSTs for treating major depressive disorder (MDD) and to determine whether perceptions interacted with the quality of CST information. Eighty-three psychiatrists read clinical notes about a hypothetical patient with MDD and reviewed two CSTs embedded within a single dashboard: the note's summary and a treatment recommendation. Psychiatrists were randomised to believe the source of CSTs was either AI or another psychiatrist, and across four notes, CSTs provided either correct or incorrect information. Psychiatrists rated the CSTs on various attributes. Ratings for note summaries were less favourable when psychiatrists believed the notes were generated with AI as compared to another psychiatrist, regardless of whether the notes provided correct or incorrect information. A smaller preference for psychiatrist-generated information emerged in ratings of attributes that reflected the summary's accuracy or its inclusion of important information from the full clinical note. Ratings for treatment recommendations were also less favourable when their perceived source was AI, but only when recommendations were correct. There was little evidence that clinical expertise or familiarity with AI impacted results. These findings suggest that psychiatrists prefer human-derived CSTs. This preference was less pronounced for ratings that may have prompted a deeper review of CST information (i.e. a comparison with the full clinical note to evaluate the summary's accuracy or completeness, assessing an incorrect treatment recommendation), suggesting a role of heuristics. Future work should explore other contributing factors and downstream implications for integrating AI into psychiatric care.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".