A Dataset for Understanding Radiologist-Artificial Intelligence Collaboration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dataset, Collab-CXR, provides a unique resource to study human-AI collaboration in chest X-ray interpretation. We present experimentally generated data from 227 professional radiologists who assessed 324 historical cases under varying information conditions: with and without AI assistance, and with and without clinical history. Using a custom-designed interface, we collected probabilistic assessments for 104 thoracic pathologies using a comprehensive hierarchical reporting structure. This dataset is the largest known comparison of human-AI collaborative performance to either AI or humans alone in radiology, offering assessments across an extensive range of pathologies with rich metadata on radiologist characteristics and decision-making processes. Multiple experimental designs enable both within-subject and between-subject analyses. Researchers can leverage this dataset to investigate how radiologists incorporate AI assistance, factors influencing collaborative effectiveness, and impacts on diagnostic accuracy, speed, and confidence across different cases and pathologies. By enabling rigorous study of human-AI integration in clinical workflows, this dataset can inform AI tool development, implementation strategies, and ultimately improve patient care through optimized collaboration in medical imaging.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".