Back

Factors Influencing the Effectiveness of AI-Assisted Decision-Making in Medicine: A Scoping Review

Jackson, N. J.; Brown, K. E.; Miller, R.; Murrow, M.; Cauley, M.; Collins, B. X.; Novak, L. L.; Benda, N.; Ancker, J. S.

2025-09-04 health informatics
10.1101/2025.09.02.25334863 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectiveResearch on artificial intelligence-based clinical decision-support (AI-CDS) systems has returned mixed results. Sometimes providing AI-CDS to a clinician will improve decision-making performance, sometimes it will not, and it is not always clear why. This scoping review seeks to clarify existing evidence by identifying clinician-level and technology design factors that impact the effectiveness of AI-assisted decision-making in medicine. Materials and MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Embase for peer-reviewed papers that studied factors impacting the effectiveness of AI-CDS. We identified the factors studied and their impact on three outcomes: clinicians attitudes toward AI, their decisions (e.g., acceptance rate of AI recommendations), and their performance when utilizing AI-CDS. ResultsWe retrieved 5,850 articles and included 45. Four clinician-level and technology design factors were commonly studied. Expert clinicians may benefit less from AI-CDS than non-experts, with some mixed results. Explainable AI increased clinicians trust, but could also increase trust in incorrect AI recommendations, potentially harming human-AI collaborative performance. Clinicians baseline attitudes toward AI predict their acceptance rates of AI recommendations. Of the three outcomes of interest, human-AI collaborative performance was most commonly assessed. Discussion and ConclusionFew factors have been studied for their impact on the effectiveness of AI-CDS. Due to conflicting outcomes between studies, we recommend future work should leverage the concept of appropriate trust to facilitate more robust research on AI-CDS, aiming not to increase overall trust in or acceptance of AI but to ensure that clinicians accept AI recommendations only when trust in AI is warranted.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.3%
2
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
9.9%
3
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
9.9%
4
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
7.1%
5
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
6.3%
6
JMIR Medical Informatics
17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.8%
7
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
4.8%
50% of probability mass above
8
Healthcare
16 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.5%
9
International Journal of Medical Informatics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.5%
10
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 40%
3.5%
11
BMC Medical Research Methodology
43 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.2%
12
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 46%
2.6%
13
JAMIA Open
37 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.3%
14
Artificial Intelligence in Medicine
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.0%
15
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 8%
2.0%
16
Frontiers in Digital Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.0%
17
Cancer Medicine
24 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.6%
18
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.5%
19
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
18 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
20
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
28 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.2%
21
DIGITAL HEALTH
12 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
22
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
23
Computers in Biology and Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
24
Systematic Reviews
11 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%
25
BJPsych Open
25 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
26
JMIR Formative Research
32 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
27
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
45 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%