Skip to content
Review

Cognitive fog in AI-assisted care: Preserving clinical reasoning, patient education, and shared decision-making.

Aug 2026 · Patient Education and Counseling · Vol 152, pp. 109808 · 0 citations · 14 references
Medicine

TL;DR

Effective mitigation must address both individual barriers, including time pressure, variable AI literacy, and reluctance to challenge automated output, and systemic barriers, including weak governance, opaque tools, misaligned incentives, and inadequate monitoring.

Abstract

Objective

This discussion paper conceptualizes cognitive fog as a communication and reasoning problem that can emerge when clinicians, patients, or organizations over-rely on artificial intelligence (AI) tools in health care.

Discussion

Drawing on a selective, theory-oriented narrative synthesis of literature on AI-enabled clinical decision support, large language models, automation bias, cognitive offloading, patient-facing AI communication, and shared decision-making, this paper defines cognitive fog as a condition in which fluent, rapid, and institutionally embedded AI output blurs the boundary between assistance and authority. It comprises epistemic blurring, metacognitive weakening, and relational displacement. In clinical and patient-facing contexts, inaccurate or biased recommendations may reduce accuracy, while polished language can make generic education appear personal and automated recommendations appear deliberative. Management requires explicit role boundaries, AI literacy, cognitive forcing routines, visible human review, proportionate patient-facing disclosure, and governance that addresses workflow, accountability, equity, and patient understanding.

Conclusion

AI overreliance is not only a technical safety issue; it is also a health communication issue because it can cloud reasoning, weaken accountability, and narrow shared decision-making. Effective mitigation must address both individual barriers, including time pressure, variable AI literacy, and reluctance to challenge automated output, and systemic barriers, including weak governance, opaque tools, misaligned incentives, and inadequate monitoring.

View source

Similar papers

Editorial Open access Aug 2026

Ask-Audit-Apply: A Framework for Clinical Reasoning with Artificial Intelligence.

Ask-Audit-Apply (AAA) is proposed as a clinician-facing framework for AI-supported clinical reasoning that specifies decision-level behavioral practices that may support education, supervision, and future research on safe AI integration across a range of CDS tools as these systems increasingly participate in clinical c...

Andrew Jenkins, Katherine W. Eisenberg, R. Ziegelstein · 0 citations
Review Open access Aug 2026

Beyond Algorithms: Human-Centered Explainability for Clinicians, Patients, and Caregivers

Two short vignettes and a design guide to help human factors researchers create explanation systems that are practical and trustworthy are presented to show how explainability can become part of the care system instead of being treated as a separate technical feature.

T. Mamun, Laurie Novak, M. Salwei · 1 citation
Open access Aug 2026

Beyond the Algorithm: Artificial Intelligence, Clinical Decision-Making, and the Moral Ecology of Care in Africa

The paper draws on the moral ecology of care and shows that algorithmic systems can reconfigure epistemic authority, redistribute responsibility, and risk marginalising context-sensitive and relational dimensions of care and argues that AI systems are better understood as socio-technical mirrors that reflect and amplif...

K. M. Mussie · 0 citations
Open access Jul 2026

Medical AI Agents for Clinical Decision Support: Viewpoint Using the Planning, Action, Reflection, and Memory (PARM) Analytical Lens

This Viewpoint argues that agentic architectures incorporating planning, action, reflection, and memory (PARM) represent a meaningful evolution beyond traditional rule-based, machine learning, and multimodal clinical decision support systems.

Raşit Dinç, N. Ardic · 1 citation
Open access Jul 2026

Cognitive Friction in Clinical Decision Support: A Comparative Study of Judicial and Adjunct Human–AI Interaction Protocols

Overall findings suggest that the effectiveness of decision-support systems depends not only on model performance and explanation quality but also on interaction design, and judicial protocols showed promise in mitigating automation bias and promoting active cognitive engagement in clinical decision support.

Samuele Pe, Laura Bergomi, G. Nicora et al. · 0 citations
Open access Jul 2026

Clinical cognition in the age of cardiovascular AI

It is argued that AI should be understood not as a replacement for clinical intuition, but as a cognitive instrument that reshapes how cardiovascular teams perceive, prioritize, reason, decide, decide, communicate, and learn.

Jose E. Krieger · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.