Exploring the risks of over-reliance on AI in diagnostic pathology. What lessons can be learned to support the training of young pathologists?

The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithms into pathology practice presents both opportunities and challenges. Although it can improve accuracy and inter-rater reliability, it is not infallible and can produce erroneous diagnoses, hence the need for pathologists to always check predictions. This critical judgment is particularly important when algorithm errors could lead to high-impact negative clinical outcomes, such as missing an invasive carcinoma. However, the influence of AI tools on pathologists' decision-making is not well explored. This study aims to evaluate the impact of a previously developed AI tool on the diagnostic accuracy and inter-rater reliability among pathologists, while assessing whether pathologists maintain independent judgment of AI predictions. Eight pathologists from different hospitals and with varying levels of experience, participated in the study. Each of them reviewed 115 slides of laryngeal biopsies, including benign epithelium, low-grade and high-grade dysplasia, and invasive squamous carcinomas. The study compared diagnostic outcomes with and without AI assistance. The reference labels were established by an expert's double-blind review. Results show that assisted pathologists had a higher accuracy for high-grade dysplasia, invasive carcinoma and improved inter-rater reliability. However, cases of over-reliance on AI have been observed, resulting in the omission of correctly diagnosed invasive carcinomas during the unassisted examination. The false predictions on these carcinoma slides were labeled with a low confidence score, which was not considered by the less experienced pathologists, showing the risk that they would follow the AI prediction without enough critical judgment or expertise. Our study emphasizes the potential over-reliance of pathologists on AI models and the potential harmful consequences, even with the advancement of powerful algorithms. The integration of confidence scores and the education of pathologists to use this tool could help to optimize the safe integration of AI into pathology practice.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
PLoS ONE
Published
2025-08-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0323270
Citations
2
Primary Topic
AI in cancer detection
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
4.96

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Exploring the risks of over-reliance on AI in diagnostic pathology. What lessons can be learned to support the training of young pathologists?

Claire Bocciarelli, Aurélie Bèaufrere, Bettina Fabiani, Thomas Walter et al.
2 citations
PLoS ONE
AI in cancer detection
4.96
article

Exploring the risks of over-reliance on AI in diagnostic pathology. What lessons can be learned to support the training of young pathologists?

Claire Bocciarelli, Aurélie Bèaufrere, Bettina Fabiani, Thomas Walter, Cécile Badoual, Cyprien Tilmant, Mélanie Lubrano, Charles Lépine, Aurélien Morini, Elise Decroix, Yaëlle Bellahsen‐Harrar, Anaïs Brunet, Franck Neil El-Sissy
article en
2 citations

Abstract

The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithms into pathology practice presents both opportunities and challenges. Although it can improve accuracy and inter-rater reliability, it is not infallible and can produce erroneous diagnoses, hence the need for pathologists to always check predictions. This critical judgment is particularly important when algorithm errors could lead to high-impact negative clinical outcomes, such as missing an invasive carcinoma. However, the influence of AI tools on pathologists' decision-making is not well explored. This study aims to evaluate the impact of a previously developed AI tool on the diagnostic accuracy and inter-rater reliability among pathologists, while assessing whether pathologists maintain independent judgment of AI predictions. Eight pathologists from different hospitals and with varying levels of experience, participated in the study. Each of them reviewed 115 slides of laryngeal biopsies, including benign epithelium, low-grade and high-grade dysplasia, and invasive squamous carcinomas. The study compared diagnostic outcomes with and without AI assistance. The reference labels were established by an expert's double-blind review. Results show that assisted pathologists had a higher accuracy for high-grade dysplasia, invasive carcinoma and improved inter-rater reliability. However, cases of over-reliance on AI have been observed, resulting in the omission of correctly diagnosed invasive carcinomas during the unassisted examination. The false predictions on these carcinoma slides were labeled with a low confidence score, which was not considered by the less experienced pathologists, showing the risk that they would follow the AI prediction without enough critical judgment or expertise. Our study emphasizes the potential over-reliance of pathologists on AI models and the potential harmful consequences, even with the advancement of powerful algorithms. The integration of confidence scores and the education of pathologists to use this tool could help to optimize the safe integration of AI into pathology practice.

PLoS ONEVol. 20(8)
Inserm (FR), Université Paris-Est Créteil (FR), Université Paris Cité (FR), Université Paris Sciences et Lettres (FR), Hôpital Beaujon (FR), Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nantes (FR), Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris (FR), Institut universitaire du cancer de Toulouse Oncopole (FR), Hôpital Européen Georges-Pompidou (FR), Hôpital Européen (FR), Centre Hospitalier Sud Francilien (FR), Hôpital Lariboisière (FR), Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Brest (FR), Groupe Hospitalier de l'Institut Catholique de Lille (FR), Institut Curie (FR), Nantes Université (FR)
Association Nationale de la Recherche et de la Technologie
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
AI in cancer detection
4.96
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.