Automation Bias in AI-Assisted Simulated Radiotherapy Decision-Making Among Undergraduate Radiological Sciences Students: A Controlled Experimental Study

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) may support clinical decision-making but introduce automation bias when incorrect recommendations influence users. This study aimed to determine the occurrence of harmful automation bias among undergraduate radiological sciences students during AI-assisted radiotherapy decision-making and to examine the influence of time pressure. Methods: In a controlled experiment, 54 final-year undergraduate radiological sciences students with no prior clinical radiotherapy placement experience completed 20 simulated radiotherapy decision-making scenarios with 13 correct and seven deliberately incorrect AI recommendations (1080 trials). Initial and final responses, AI advice acceptance, confidence, perceived workload, and attitudes toward AI verification were assessed. Students were assigned to time-pressure (n = 26) or no-time-pressure (n = 28) conditions. Harmful automation bias was operationally defined as switching from an initially correct response to an incorrect response matching AI advice. Results: Harmful automation bias occurred in 20/220 eligible trials (9.1%), affecting 15/54 students (27.8%). Incorrect AI advice was followed in 137/378 trials (36.2%). Overall accuracy remained similar before and after AI exposure (75.65% vs. 74.91%; p = 0.289). Time pressure increased workload, but no statistically significant association with harmful automation bias was observed (OR = 0.78; p = 0.654). Lower post-decision confidence was associated with harmful automation bias (OR = 0.599; p = 0.028). No statistically significant difference in harmful automation bias was observed between participants who supported AI verification and those who did not. Conclusions: Harmful automation bias can occur despite stable overall accuracy, suggesting that greater emphasis on critical appraisal, active verification, and independent judgement may be valuable in radiotherapy education.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
International Medical Education
Published
2026-11-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/ime5040127
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
OCT
NOV
article

Automation Bias in AI-Assisted Simulated Radiotherapy Decision-Making Among Undergraduate Radiological Sciences Students: A Controlled Experimental Study

Abir Bouaoun, Lojain Abdulaal, Nasser M Alzahrani, Awad Alzahrani et al.
International Medical Education
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
article

Automation Bias in AI-Assisted Simulated Radiotherapy Decision-Making Among Undergraduate Radiological Sciences Students: A Controlled Experimental Study

Abir Bouaoun, Lojain Abdulaal, Nasser M Alzahrani, Awad Alzahrani, Reem Althubaiti, Meshal Alzahrani, Nouf M. Alzahrani
article en

Abstract

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) may support clinical decision-making but introduce automation bias when incorrect recommendations influence users. This study aimed to determine the occurrence of harmful automation bias among undergraduate radiological sciences students during AI-assisted radiotherapy decision-making and to examine the influence of time pressure. Methods: In a controlled experiment, 54 final-year undergraduate radiological sciences students with no prior clinical radiotherapy placement experience completed 20 simulated radiotherapy decision-making scenarios with 13 correct and seven deliberately incorrect AI recommendations (1080 trials). Initial and final responses, AI advice acceptance, confidence, perceived workload, and attitudes toward AI verification were assessed. Students were assigned to time-pressure (n = 26) or no-time-pressure (n = 28) conditions. Harmful automation bias was operationally defined as switching from an initially correct response to an incorrect response matching AI advice. Results: Harmful automation bias occurred in 20/220 eligible trials (9.1%), affecting 15/54 students (27.8%). Incorrect AI advice was followed in 137/378 trials (36.2%). Overall accuracy remained similar before and after AI exposure (75.65% vs. 74.91%; p = 0.289). Time pressure increased workload, but no statistically significant association with harmful automation bias was observed (OR = 0.78; p = 0.654). Lower post-decision confidence was associated with harmful automation bias (OR = 0.599; p = 0.028). No statistically significant difference in harmful automation bias was observed between participants who supported AI verification and those who did not. Conclusions: Harmful automation bias can occur despite stable overall accuracy, suggesting that greater emphasis on critical appraisal, active verification, and independent judgement may be valuable in radiotherapy education.

International Medical EducationVol. 5(4)
King Abdulaziz University (SA)
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.

Laika access coming soon