AI Quality and Clinical Roles Impact Decision Quality in AI-Augmented Medical Decisions More than AI Explanations

Background: Explainable AI has garnered significant attention in recent years, particularly in high-risk domains such as health care. Despite the enthusiasm, empirical evidence on the impact of AI explanations remains mixed. This study explores the effects of AI-generated recommendations and various types of AI explanations on clinical decision quality. Methods: We conducted 3 experiments involving clinicians who made drug-dosing decisions using AI recommendations of differing quality and explanations. We evaluated 4 types of explanations: a global explanation about how the AI system worked and 3 case-specific local explanations that respectively included the What (what factors were considered for the case), What+Why (why the factors mattered), and What+Why+How (how the system considered them). We recruited clinicians with varying levels of domain expertise, including pharmacists, physicians, nurses, and midlevel providers. Results: Our results suggest that compared with AI explanations, AI recommendation quality played a more important role in decision quality. Clinical roles, a proxy for domain knowledge, moderated the effects of AI recommendation quality on decision quality and AI influence. Compared with pharmacists and physicians with greater domain knowledge, midlevel providers and nurses were more susceptible to being influenced by low-quality AI recommendations. Contrary to theoretical predictions, local AI explanations increased trust in the AI system but did not improve decision quality over global explanations. Instead, trust in AI seemed largely unrelated to clinical decision quality. Conclusion: This study underscores the importance of AI recommendation quality in clinical decision making and the need to personalize AI design and AI training to clinicians with different roles and domain knowledge. Our findings also suggest that detailed AI explanations do not necessarily improve AI-augmented medical decisions even though they can increase trust in AI recommendations.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Medical Decision Making
Published
2026-09-22
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x261484927
Primary Topic
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

AI Quality and Clinical Roles Impact Decision Quality in AI-Augmented Medical Decisions More than AI Explanations

Shawn P. Curley, J.D. Clement, Yuqing Ren
Medical Decision Making
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
article

AI Quality and Clinical Roles Impact Decision Quality in AI-Augmented Medical Decisions More than AI Explanations

Shawn P. Curley, J.D. Clement, Yuqing Ren
article en

Abstract

Background: Explainable AI has garnered significant attention in recent years, particularly in high-risk domains such as health care. Despite the enthusiasm, empirical evidence on the impact of AI explanations remains mixed. This study explores the effects of AI-generated recommendations and various types of AI explanations on clinical decision quality. Methods: We conducted 3 experiments involving clinicians who made drug-dosing decisions using AI recommendations of differing quality and explanations. We evaluated 4 types of explanations: a global explanation about how the AI system worked and 3 case-specific local explanations that respectively included the What (what factors were considered for the case), What+Why (why the factors mattered), and What+Why+How (how the system considered them). We recruited clinicians with varying levels of domain expertise, including pharmacists, physicians, nurses, and midlevel providers. Results: Our results suggest that compared with AI explanations, AI recommendation quality played a more important role in decision quality. Clinical roles, a proxy for domain knowledge, moderated the effects of AI recommendation quality on decision quality and AI influence. Compared with pharmacists and physicians with greater domain knowledge, midlevel providers and nurses were more susceptible to being influenced by low-quality AI recommendations. Contrary to theoretical predictions, local AI explanations increased trust in the AI system but did not improve decision quality over global explanations. Instead, trust in AI seemed largely unrelated to clinical decision quality. Conclusion: This study underscores the importance of AI recommendation quality in clinical decision making and the need to personalize AI design and AI training to clinicians with different roles and domain knowledge. Our findings also suggest that detailed AI explanations do not necessarily improve AI-augmented medical decisions even though they can increase trust in AI recommendations.

Medical Decision Making
Augsburg University (US), University of Minnesota (US)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 15%
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
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.