Gaube, SusanneSuresh, HariniRaue, MartinaLermer, EvaKoch, Timo K.Hudecek, MatthiasAckery, Alun D.Grover, Samir C.Coughlin, Joseph F.Frey, DieterKitamura, Felipe C.Ghassemi, MarzyehColak, Errol2024-10-282024-10-2820232045-232210.1038/s41598-023-28633-whttps://irf.fhnw.ch/handle/11654/47602Artificial intelligence (AI)-generated clinical advice is becoming more prevalent in healthcare. However, the impact of AI-generated advice on physicians’ decision-making is underexplored. In this study, physicians received X-rays with correct diagnostic advice and were asked to make a diagnosis, rate the advice’s quality, and judge their own confidence. We manipulated whether the advice came with or without a visual annotation on the X-rays, and whether it was labeled as coming from an AI or a human radiologist. Overall, receiving annotated advice from an AI resulted in the highest diagnostic accuracy. Physicians rated the quality of AI advice higher than human advice. We did not find a strong effect of either manipulation on participants’ confidence. The magnitude of the effects varied between task experts and non-task experts, with the latter benefiting considerably from correct explainable AI advice. These findings raise important considerations for the deployment of diagnostic advice in healthcare.en150 - Psychologie610 - Medizin und Gesundheit004 - Computer Wissenschaften, Internet01A - Beitrag in wissenschaftlicher Zeitschrift1383