Radiologist-AI workflow can be modified to reduce the risk of medical malpractice claims

BackgroundArtificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly changing the legal landscape of radiology. Results from a previous experiment suggested that providing AI error rates can reduce perceived radiologist culpability, as judged by mock jury members (4). The current study advances this work by examining whether the radiologists behavior also impacts perceptions of liability. Methods. Participants (n=282) read about a hypothetical malpractice case where a 50-year-old who visited the Emergency Department with acute neurological symptoms received a brain CT scan to determine if bleeding was present. An AI system was used by the radiologist who interpreted imaging. The AI system correctly flagged the case as abnormal. Nonetheless, the radiologist concluded no evidence of bleeding, and the blood-thinner t-PA was administered. Participants were randomly assigned to either a 1.) single-read condition, where the radiologist interpreted the CT once after seeing AI feedback, or 2.) a double-read condition, where the radiologist interpreted the CT twice, first without AI and then with AI feedback. Participants were then told the patient suffered irreversible brain damage due to the missed brain bleed, resulting in the patient (plaintiff) suing the radiologist (defendant). Participants indicated whether the radiologist met their duty of care to the patient (yes/no). Results. Hypothetical jurors were more likely to side with the plaintiff in the single-read condition (106/142, 74.7%) than in the double-read condition (74/140, 52.9%), p=0.0002. Conclusion. This suggests that the penalty for disagreeing with correct AI can be mitigated when images are interpreted twice, or at least if a radiologist gives an interpretation before AI is used.