Scholarlink

<p>This study investigates how a physician’s use of generative AI (GenAI) in medical decision‑making is perceived by peer clinicians. In a randomized experiment, 276 practicing clinicians evaluated one of three vignettes depicting a physician: (1) using no GenAI (Control), (2) using GenAI as a primary decision-making tool (GenAI-primary), and (3) using GenAI as a verification tool (GenAI-verify). Participants rated the physician depicted in the GenAI‑primary condition significantly lower in clinical skill (on a 1–7 scale; mean = 3.79) than in the Control condition (5.93, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). Framing GenAI use as verification partially mitigated this effect (4.99, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). Similar patterns appeared for perceived overall healthcare experience and competence. Participants also acknowledged GenAI’s value in improving accuracy (4.30, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.002) and rated institutionally customized GenAI more favorably (4.96, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). These findings suggest that while clinicians see GenAI as helpful, its use can negatively impact peer evaluations. These effects can be reduced, but not fully eliminated, by framing it as a verification aid.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Peer perceptions of clinicians using generative AI in medical decision-making

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年8月18日

查看全文
  • Haiyang Yang,
  • Tinglong Dai,
  • Nestoras Mathioudakis,
  • Amy M. Knight,
  • Yuna Nakayasu,
  • Risa M. Wolf

摘要

This study investigates how a physician’s use of generative AI (GenAI) in medical decision‑making is perceived by peer clinicians. In a randomized experiment, 276 practicing clinicians evaluated one of three vignettes depicting a physician: (1) using no GenAI (Control), (2) using GenAI as a primary decision-making tool (GenAI-primary), and (3) using GenAI as a verification tool (GenAI-verify). Participants rated the physician depicted in the GenAI‑primary condition significantly lower in clinical skill (on a 1–7 scale; mean = 3.79) than in the Control condition (5.93, p < 0.001). Framing GenAI use as verification partially mitigated this effect (4.99, p < 0.001). Similar patterns appeared for perceived overall healthcare experience and competence. Participants also acknowledged GenAI’s value in improving accuracy (4.30, p < 0.002) and rated institutionally customized GenAI more favorably (4.96, p < 0.001). These findings suggest that while clinicians see GenAI as helpful, its use can negatively impact peer evaluations. These effects can be reduced, but not fully eliminated, by framing it as a verification aid.