Comparison of Initial Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Final Physician Recommendations in AI-Assisted Virtual Urgent Care Visits.

IF 19.6 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
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.

Primary funding source: K Health.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Annals of Internal Medicine
Annals of Internal Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
23.90
自引率
1.80%
发文量
1136
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信