Experts and Non-Experts Use Diagnostic Aids Inefficiently

Studies benchmarking automation-assisted decision making against models of optimal use have shown that assisted performance is highly inefficient. However, these exercises have used novice populations performing simplified decision tasks, limiting their generalizability. Cao et al. (2023) described a machine learning algorithm capable of screening CT scans for early signs of pancreatic cancer with an extremely high sensitivity (area under the curve ≥ 98.5%) and demonstrated that the algorithm improved human clinicians’ diagnoses. We reanalyzed the data of Cao et al. (2023) to assess the efficiency of the clinicians’ aid use. Assisted performance was highly inefficient, roughly matching the predictions of a model that assumes participants randomly defer to the aid’s advice with a probability of 50%. Moreover, aid use was equally poor across varying levels of clinician expertise. The results replicate previous findings of poor decision aid use and confirm that they generalize to real-world tasks using expert decision makers.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting
Published
2024-08-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/10711813241275516
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.24
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Experts and Non-Experts Use Diagnostic Aids Inefficiently

Megan L. Bartlett, Jason S. McCarley
2 citations
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
0.24
article

Experts and Non-Experts Use Diagnostic Aids Inefficiently

Megan L. Bartlett, Jason S. McCarley
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Studies benchmarking automation-assisted decision making against models of optimal use have shown that assisted performance is highly inefficient. However, these exercises have used novice populations performing simplified decision tasks, limiting their generalizability. Cao et al. (2023) described a machine learning algorithm capable of screening CT scans for early signs of pancreatic cancer with an extremely high sensitivity (area under the curve ≥ 98.5%) and demonstrated that the algorithm improved human clinicians’ diagnoses. We reanalyzed the data of Cao et al. (2023) to assess the efficiency of the clinicians’ aid use. Assisted performance was highly inefficient, roughly matching the predictions of a model that assumes participants randomly defer to the aid’s advice with a probability of 50%. Moreover, aid use was equally poor across varying levels of clinician expertise. The results replicate previous findings of poor decision aid use and confirm that they generalize to real-world tasks using expert decision makers.

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual MeetingVol. 68(1)
Oregon State University (US), The University of Adelaide (AU)
Openalex Percentile: Top 41%
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
0.24
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.