Dan Zeltzer, Zehavi Kugler, Lior Hayat, Tamar Brufman, Ran Ilan Ber, Keren Leibovich, Tom Beer, Ilan Frank, Ran Shaul, Caroline Goldzweig, Joshua Pevnick
{"title":"Comparison of Initial Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Final Physician Recommendations in AI-Assisted Virtual Urgent Care Visits.","authors":"Dan Zeltzer, Zehavi Kugler, Lior Hayat, Tamar Brufman, Ran Ilan Ber, Keren Leibovich, Tom Beer, Ilan Frank, Ran Shaul, Caroline Goldzweig, Joshua Pevnick","doi":"10.7326/ANNALS-24-03283","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Whether artificial intelligence (AI) assistance is associated with quality of care is uncertain.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare initial AI recommendations with final recommendations of physicians who had access to the AI recommendations and may or may not have viewed them.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective cohort study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Cedars-Sinai Connect, an AI-assisted virtual urgent care clinic with intake questions via structured chat. When confidence is sufficient, AI presents diagnosis and management recommendations (prescriptions, laboratory tests, and referrals).</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>461 physician-managed visits with AI recommendations of sufficient confidence and complete medical records for adults with respiratory, urinary, vaginal, eye, or dental symptoms from 12 June to 14 July 2024.</p><p><strong>Measurements: </strong>Concordance of diagnosis and management recommendations of initial AI recommendations and final physician recommendations. Physician adjudicators scored all nonconcordant and a sample of concordant recommendations as optimal, reasonable, inadequate, or potentially harmful.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Initial AI and final physician recommendations were concordant for 262 visits (56.8%). Among the 461 weighted visits, AI recommendations were more frequently rated as optimal (77.1% [95% CI, 72.7% to 80.9%]) compared with treating physician decisions (67.1% [CI, 62.9% to 71.1%]). Quality scores were equal in 67.9% (CI, 64.8% to 70.9%) of cases, better for AI in 20.8% (CI, 17.8% to 24.0%), and better for treating physicians in 11.3% (CI, 9.0% to 14.2%), respectively.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>Single-center retrospective study. Adjudicators were not blinded to the source of recommendations. It is unknown whether physicians viewed AI recommendations.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>When AI and physician recommendations differed, AI recommendations were more often rated better quality. Findings suggest that AI performed better in identifying critical red flags and supporting guideline-adherent care, whereas physicians were better at adapting recommendations to changing information during consultations. Thus, AI may have a role in assisting physician decision making in virtual urgent care.</p><p><strong>Primary funding source: </strong>K Health.</p>","PeriodicalId":7932,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Internal Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":19.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Internal Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7326/ANNALS-24-03283","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Whether artificial intelligence (AI) assistance is associated with quality of care is uncertain.
Objective: To compare initial AI recommendations with final recommendations of physicians who had access to the AI recommendations and may or may not have viewed them.
Design: Retrospective cohort study.
Setting: Cedars-Sinai Connect, an AI-assisted virtual urgent care clinic with intake questions via structured chat. When confidence is sufficient, AI presents diagnosis and management recommendations (prescriptions, laboratory tests, and referrals).
Patients: 461 physician-managed visits with AI recommendations of sufficient confidence and complete medical records for adults with respiratory, urinary, vaginal, eye, or dental symptoms from 12 June to 14 July 2024.
Measurements: Concordance of diagnosis and management recommendations of initial AI recommendations and final physician recommendations. Physician adjudicators scored all nonconcordant and a sample of concordant recommendations as optimal, reasonable, inadequate, or potentially harmful.
Results: Initial AI and final physician recommendations were concordant for 262 visits (56.8%). Among the 461 weighted visits, AI recommendations were more frequently rated as optimal (77.1% [95% CI, 72.7% to 80.9%]) compared with treating physician decisions (67.1% [CI, 62.9% to 71.1%]). Quality scores were equal in 67.9% (CI, 64.8% to 70.9%) of cases, better for AI in 20.8% (CI, 17.8% to 24.0%), and better for treating physicians in 11.3% (CI, 9.0% to 14.2%), respectively.
Limitations: Single-center retrospective study. Adjudicators were not blinded to the source of recommendations. It is unknown whether physicians viewed AI recommendations.
Conclusion: When AI and physician recommendations differed, AI recommendations were more often rated better quality. Findings suggest that AI performed better in identifying critical red flags and supporting guideline-adherent care, whereas physicians were better at adapting recommendations to changing information during consultations. Thus, AI may have a role in assisting physician decision making in virtual urgent care.
期刊介绍:
Established in 1927 by the American College of Physicians (ACP), Annals of Internal Medicine is the premier internal medicine journal. Annals of Internal Medicine’s mission is to promote excellence in medicine, enable physicians and other health care professionals to be well informed members of the medical community and society, advance standards in the conduct and reporting of medical research, and contribute to improving the health of people worldwide. To achieve this mission, the journal publishes a wide variety of original research, review articles, practice guidelines, and commentary relevant to clinical practice, health care delivery, public health, health care policy, medical education, ethics, and research methodology. In addition, the journal publishes personal narratives that convey the feeling and the art of medicine.