Who is Trusted for a Second Opinion? Comparing Collective Advice from a Medical AI and Physicians in Biopsy Decisions After Mammography Screening

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly integrated into clinical practice, but its influence on patient decision-making, particularly when AI and physicians disagree, remains unclear. To examine collective advice, we investigated a breast cancer screening scenario using (1) a qualitative interview study (N=9) and (2) a quantitative experiment (N=339) where participants received either consistent or conflicting biopsy recommendations. Qualitative findings include the need for empathetic care, the importance of patient autonomy, and a desire for a four-eyes principle. Quantitative findings accordingly show that patients generally trust physicians more than AI but still tend to follow AI recommendations due to risk aversion. When both advised a biopsy, 99% adhered; if both advised against it, 25% still proceeded. In conflicting scenarios, 97% followed the physician's advice, whereas 66% followed the AI if it recommended the biopsy. These results underscore the need for careful interaction design of collective healthcare advice to prevent unnecessary healthcare procedures.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Published
2025-04-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713898
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.65
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Who is Trusted for a Second Opinion? Comparing Collective Advice from a Medical AI and Physicians in Biopsy Decisions After Mammography Screening

Niklas von Kalckreuth, Henrik Detjen, Marvin Kopka, Lars Densky
1 citations
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
0.65
article

Who is Trusted for a Second Opinion? Comparing Collective Advice from a Medical AI and Physicians in Biopsy Decisions After Mammography Screening

Niklas von Kalckreuth, Henrik Detjen, Marvin Kopka, Lars Densky
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly integrated into clinical practice, but its influence on patient decision-making, particularly when AI and physicians disagree, remains unclear. To examine collective advice, we investigated a breast cancer screening scenario using (1) a qualitative interview study (N=9) and (2) a quantitative experiment (N=339) where participants received either consistent or conflicting biopsy recommendations. Qualitative findings include the need for empathetic care, the importance of patient autonomy, and a desire for a four-eyes principle. Quantitative findings accordingly show that patients generally trust physicians more than AI but still tend to follow AI recommendations due to risk aversion. When both advised a biopsy, 99% adhered; if both advised against it, 25% still proceeded. In conflicting scenarios, 97% followed the physician's advice, whereas 66% followed the AI if it recommended the biopsy. These results underscore the need for careful interaction design of collective healthcare advice to prevent unnecessary healthcare procedures.

Fraunhofer Institute for Digital Medicine (DE), Technische Universität Berlin (DE)
Gender equality
Openalex Percentile: Top 26%
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
0.65
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.