Sign in to use this feature.

Years

Between: -

Subjects

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Journals

Article Types

Countries / Regions

Search Results (1)

Search Parameters:
Authors = Daniel Mullarkey

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
11 pages, 4229 KiB  
Article
Attitudes towards Trusting Artificial Intelligence Insights and Factors to Prevent the Passive Adherence of GPs: A Pilot Study
by Massimo Micocci, Simone Borsci, Viral Thakerar, Simon Walne, Yasmine Manshadi, Finlay Edridge, Daniel Mullarkey, Peter Buckle and George B. Hanna
J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10(14), 3101; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10143101 - 14 Jul 2021
Cited by 18 | Viewed by 3818
Abstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems could improve system efficiency by supporting clinicians in making appropriate referrals. However, they are imperfect by nature and misdiagnoses, if not correctly identified, can have consequences for patient care. In this paper, findings from an online survey are presented [...] Read more.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems could improve system efficiency by supporting clinicians in making appropriate referrals. However, they are imperfect by nature and misdiagnoses, if not correctly identified, can have consequences for patient care. In this paper, findings from an online survey are presented to understand the aptitude of GPs (n = 50) in appropriately trusting or not trusting the output of a fictitious AI-based decision support tool when assessing skin lesions, and to identify which individual characteristics could make GPs less prone to adhere to erroneous diagnostics results. The findings suggest that, when the AI was correct, the GPs’ ability to correctly diagnose a skin lesion significantly improved after receiving correct AI information, from 73.6% to 86.8% (X2 (1, N = 50) = 21.787, p < 0.001), with significant effects for both the benign (X2 (1, N = 50) = 21, p < 0.001) and malignant cases (X2 (1, N = 50) = 4.654, p = 0.031). However, when the AI provided erroneous information, only 10% of the GPs were able to correctly disagree with the indication of the AI in terms of diagnosis (d-AIW M: 0.12, SD: 0.37), and only 14% of participants were able to correctly decide the management plan despite the AI insights (d-AIW M:0.12, SD: 0.32). The analysis of the difference between groups in terms of individual characteristics suggested that GPs with domain knowledge in dermatology were better at rejecting the wrong insights from AI. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop