Findings suggest that AI can be easily persuaded by what people say, who says it, and how the opinion is presented, enabling its safe and reliable use in high stakes medical decision making.
Abstract
As AI becomes increasingly integrated into clinical practice, it is playing a growing role in medical decision making. Medicine, however, is a high stakes and evidence based field, where decisions can directly affect patients'lives. It is therefore important to understand whether AI can maintain objective judgment when others try to persuade it. In this paper, we study how easily AI can be persuaded through controlled experiments. We find that professional authority, national background, institutional affiliation, claimed past performance, multiple physicians, supported clinician views, and repeated pressure can all affect AI decisions. Surprisingly, the same persuasive input changes about 10% more cases when it comes from a senior clinician than from a medical student. Simply claiming a better performance history consistently makes the physician more persuasive. More strikingly, a plausible clinician view can persuade AI away from a correct decision even when it is fabricated to support an incorrect answer. This indicates that AI can be strongly influenced by convincing support without reliably determining whether this view from the clinician is correct. Together, these findings suggest that AI can be easily persuaded by what people say, who says it, and how the opinion is presented. Therefore, it is essential for AI to maintain sound judgment under persuasion, enabling its safe and reliable use in high stakes medical decision making.
The use of AI to support physicians appears more acceptable when used for analytical rather than decisional support, or when physicians’ decisional independence is visibly retained, suggesting that trust in AI-supported medical decisions depends not only on whether physicians use AI support but also on subjective perce...
Insa Schaffernak, Julia Cecil, Eesha Kokje et al.· Journal of Medical Internet...· 1 citation
Background Physicians’ confidence in clinical AI tools and perceptions of their effectiveness can influence the adoption of these tools in practice, which in turn, could affect the quality of patient care. However, the factors shaping these perceptions remain poorly understood. Methods We surveyed U.S. family medicine...
Bohye Kim, Katie Ryan, M. Kasun et al.· Research Square· 0 citations
This review examines the main factors that shape patient trust in AI-assisted diagnosis and triage and argues that trust in medical AI should be understood as calibrated confidence rather than simple approval or rejection.
Oliwer Műller, Jagoda Pałubska, Zuzanna Rafałowska et al.· International Journal of Inn...· 0 citations
This article proposes seven questions that clinicians can run through to evaluate any clinical AI tool in the time it takes to read an abstract, alongside a traffic-light schema for matching oversight to risk and a short list of demands clinicians should make of vendors and institutions.
Alaa Abdelqader, M. Alkhateeb, Abdullah Al-Marrawi et al.· Avicenna Journal of Medicine· 0 citations
This paper distinguishes technical reliability from trust in AI-supported clinical decision-making, arguing that the two belong to distinct registers that current debates tend to elide and proposes replacing the expression "trustworthy AI" with "technically reliable AI," a distinction that relocates the conditions of t...
Miranda Boldrini, Damien Lacroux, Marie-Sophie von Braun et al.· AI and Ethics· 0 citations
A single clinical algorithm can deliver unequal accuracy across patient groups, and concern about such disparity has grown as artificial intelligence (AI) spreads through clinical decision-making. In response, a liability rule introduced in the United States holds healthcare providers responsible when their reliance on...