基于网络的模拟药物验证任务中不确定性感知AI模型对药师反应时间和决策的影响:随机对照试验

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 MEDICAL INFORMATICS
Corey Lester, Brigid Rowell, Yifan Zheng, Zoe Co, Vincent Marshall, Jin Yong Kim, Qiyuan Chen, Raed Kontar, X Jessie Yang
{"title":"基于网络的模拟药物验证任务中不确定性感知AI模型对药师反应时间和决策的影响:随机对照试验","authors":"Corey Lester, Brigid Rowell, Yifan Zheng, Zoe Co, Vincent Marshall, Jin Yong Kim, Qiyuan Chen, Raed Kontar, X Jessie Yang","doi":"10.2196/64902","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Artificial intelligence (AI)-based clinical decision support systems are increasingly used in health care. Uncertainty-aware AI presents the model's confidence in its decision alongside its prediction, whereas black-box AI only provides a prediction. Little is known about how this type of AI affects health care providers' work performance and reaction time.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to determine the effects of black-box and uncertainty-aware AI advice on pharmacist decision-making and reaction time.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Recruitment emails were sent to pharmacists through professional listservs describing a web-based, crossover, randomized controlled trial. Participants were randomized to the black-box AI or uncertainty-aware AI condition in a 1:1 manner. Participants completed 100 mock verification tasks with AI help and 100 without AI help. The order of no help and AI help was randomized. Participants were exposed to correct and incorrect prescription fills, where the correct decision was to \"accept\" or \"reject,\" respectively. AI help provided correct (79%) or incorrect (21%) advice. Reaction times, participant decisions, AI advice, and AI help type were recorded for each verification. Likelihood ratio tests compared means across the three categories of AI type for each level of AI correctness.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 30 participants provided complete datasets. An equal number of participants were in each AI condition. Participants' decision-making performance and reaction times differed across the 3 conditions. Accurate AI recommendations resulted in the rejection of the incorrect drug 96.1% and 91.8% of the time for uncertainty-aware AI and black-box AI respectively, compared with 81.2% without AI help. Correctly dispensed medications were accepted at rates of 99.2% with black-box help, 94.1% with uncertainty-aware AI help, and 94.6% without AI help. Uncertainty-aware AI protected against bad AI advice to approve an incorrectly filled medication compared with black-box AI (83.3% vs 76.7%). When the AI recommended rejecting a correctly filled medication, pharmacists without AI help had a higher rate of correctly accepting the medication (94.6%) compared with uncertainty-aware AI help (86.2%) and black-box AI help (81.2%). Uncertainty-aware AI resulted in shorter reaction times than black-box AI and no AI help except in the scenario where \"AI rejects the correct drug.\" Black-box AI did not lead to reduced reaction times compared with pharmacists acting alone.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Pharmacists' performance and reaction times varied by AI type and AI accuracy. Overall, uncertainty-aware AI resulted in faster decision-making and acted as a safeguard against bad AI advice to approve a misfilled medication. Conversely, black-box AI had the longest reaction times, and user performance degraded in the presence of bad AI advice. However, uncertainty-aware AI could result in unnecessary double-checks, but it is preferred over false negative advice, where patients receive the wrong medication. These results highlight the importance of well-designed AI that addresses users' needs, enhances performance, and avoids overreliance on AI.</p>","PeriodicalId":56334,"journal":{"name":"JMIR Medical Informatics","volume":"13 ","pages":"e64902"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12023801/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effect of Uncertainty-Aware AI Models on Pharmacists' Reaction Time and Decision-Making in a Web-Based Mock Medication Verification Task: Randomized Controlled Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Corey Lester, Brigid Rowell, Yifan Zheng, Zoe Co, Vincent Marshall, Jin Yong Kim, Qiyuan Chen, Raed Kontar, X Jessie Yang\",\"doi\":\"10.2196/64902\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Artificial intelligence (AI)-based clinical decision support systems are increasingly used in health care. Uncertainty-aware AI presents the model's confidence in its decision alongside its prediction, whereas black-box AI only provides a prediction. Little is known about how this type of AI affects health care providers' work performance and reaction time.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to determine the effects of black-box and uncertainty-aware AI advice on pharmacist decision-making and reaction time.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Recruitment emails were sent to pharmacists through professional listservs describing a web-based, crossover, randomized controlled trial. Participants were randomized to the black-box AI or uncertainty-aware AI condition in a 1:1 manner. Participants completed 100 mock verification tasks with AI help and 100 without AI help. The order of no help and AI help was randomized. Participants were exposed to correct and incorrect prescription fills, where the correct decision was to \\\"accept\\\" or \\\"reject,\\\" respectively. AI help provided correct (79%) or incorrect (21%) advice. Reaction times, participant decisions, AI advice, and AI help type were recorded for each verification. Likelihood ratio tests compared means across the three categories of AI type for each level of AI correctness.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 30 participants provided complete datasets. An equal number of participants were in each AI condition. Participants' decision-making performance and reaction times differed across the 3 conditions. Accurate AI recommendations resulted in the rejection of the incorrect drug 96.1% and 91.8% of the time for uncertainty-aware AI and black-box AI respectively, compared with 81.2% without AI help. Correctly dispensed medications were accepted at rates of 99.2% with black-box help, 94.1% with uncertainty-aware AI help, and 94.6% without AI help. Uncertainty-aware AI protected against bad AI advice to approve an incorrectly filled medication compared with black-box AI (83.3% vs 76.7%). When the AI recommended rejecting a correctly filled medication, pharmacists without AI help had a higher rate of correctly accepting the medication (94.6%) compared with uncertainty-aware AI help (86.2%) and black-box AI help (81.2%). Uncertainty-aware AI resulted in shorter reaction times than black-box AI and no AI help except in the scenario where \\\"AI rejects the correct drug.\\\" Black-box AI did not lead to reduced reaction times compared with pharmacists acting alone.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Pharmacists' performance and reaction times varied by AI type and AI accuracy. Overall, uncertainty-aware AI resulted in faster decision-making and acted as a safeguard against bad AI advice to approve a misfilled medication. Conversely, black-box AI had the longest reaction times, and user performance degraded in the presence of bad AI advice. However, uncertainty-aware AI could result in unnecessary double-checks, but it is preferred over false negative advice, where patients receive the wrong medication. These results highlight the importance of well-designed AI that addresses users' needs, enhances performance, and avoids overreliance on AI.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56334,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JMIR Medical Informatics\",\"volume\":\"13 \",\"pages\":\"e64902\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12023801/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JMIR Medical Informatics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2196/64902\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL INFORMATICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR Medical Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/64902","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICAL INFORMATICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:基于人工智能(AI)的临床决策支持系统越来越多地应用于卫生保健领域。不确定性感知的人工智能在预测的同时也展示了模型对其决策的信心,而黑盒人工智能只提供了一个预测。人们对这种类型的人工智能如何影响医疗保健提供者的工作表现和反应时间知之甚少。目的:研究黑盒和不确定性人工智能建议对药师决策和反应时间的影响。方法:通过专业的listservs向药剂师发送招聘邮件,描述一个基于网络的、交叉的、随机对照试验。参与者以1:1的方式随机分配到黑盒人工智能或不确定性感知人工智能条件。参与者在人工智能帮助下完成了100个模拟验证任务,在没有人工智能帮助的情况下完成了100个模拟验证任务。无帮助和人工智能帮助的顺序是随机的。参与者被暴露在正确和不正确的处方填充中,其中正确的决定分别是“接受”或“拒绝”。人工智能帮助提供正确(79%)或不正确(21%)的建议。记录每次验证的反应时间、参与者决策、人工智能建议和人工智能帮助类型。似然比测试比较了三种人工智能类型在每个级别的人工智能正确性上的均值。结果:共有30名参与者提供了完整的数据集。每个人工智能条件下的参与者人数相同。参与者的决策表现和反应时间在三种情况下有所不同。对于不确定性感知的AI和黑盒AI,准确的AI推荐分别导致96.1%和91.8%的不正确药物被拒绝,而在没有AI帮助的情况下,这一比例为81.2%。在黑箱帮助下,正确配药的接受率为99.2%,在不确定性感知人工智能帮助下为94.1%,在没有人工智能帮助的情况下为94.6%。与黑箱人工智能相比,具有不确定性意识的人工智能可以防止不良人工智能建议批准错误填充的药物(83.3%对76.7%)。当人工智能建议拒绝正确配药时,没有人工智能帮助的药剂师正确接受药物的比例(94.6%)高于不确定性感知的人工智能帮助(86.2%)和黑盒人工智能帮助(81.2%)。不确定性感知AI的反应时间比黑盒AI短,除了“AI拒绝正确的药物”的场景之外,AI没有任何帮助。与单独行动的药剂师相比,黑箱人工智能并没有减少反应时间。结论:药师的表现和反应时间因人工智能类型和人工智能准确性而异。总体而言,具有不确定性意识的人工智能可以更快地做出决策,并防止人工智能建议批准错误的药物。相反地,黑盒AI拥有最长的反应时间,并且在出现糟糕的AI建议时用户性能会下降。然而,具有不确定性意识的人工智能可能会导致不必要的双重检查,但它比假阴性建议更可取,因为假阴性建议会导致患者接受错误的药物治疗。这些结果强调了设计良好的人工智能的重要性,它可以满足用户的需求,提高性能,并避免过度依赖人工智能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Effect of Uncertainty-Aware AI Models on Pharmacists' Reaction Time and Decision-Making in a Web-Based Mock Medication Verification Task: Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI)-based clinical decision support systems are increasingly used in health care. Uncertainty-aware AI presents the model's confidence in its decision alongside its prediction, whereas black-box AI only provides a prediction. Little is known about how this type of AI affects health care providers' work performance and reaction time.

Objective: This study aimed to determine the effects of black-box and uncertainty-aware AI advice on pharmacist decision-making and reaction time.

Methods: Recruitment emails were sent to pharmacists through professional listservs describing a web-based, crossover, randomized controlled trial. Participants were randomized to the black-box AI or uncertainty-aware AI condition in a 1:1 manner. Participants completed 100 mock verification tasks with AI help and 100 without AI help. The order of no help and AI help was randomized. Participants were exposed to correct and incorrect prescription fills, where the correct decision was to "accept" or "reject," respectively. AI help provided correct (79%) or incorrect (21%) advice. Reaction times, participant decisions, AI advice, and AI help type were recorded for each verification. Likelihood ratio tests compared means across the three categories of AI type for each level of AI correctness.

Results: A total of 30 participants provided complete datasets. An equal number of participants were in each AI condition. Participants' decision-making performance and reaction times differed across the 3 conditions. Accurate AI recommendations resulted in the rejection of the incorrect drug 96.1% and 91.8% of the time for uncertainty-aware AI and black-box AI respectively, compared with 81.2% without AI help. Correctly dispensed medications were accepted at rates of 99.2% with black-box help, 94.1% with uncertainty-aware AI help, and 94.6% without AI help. Uncertainty-aware AI protected against bad AI advice to approve an incorrectly filled medication compared with black-box AI (83.3% vs 76.7%). When the AI recommended rejecting a correctly filled medication, pharmacists without AI help had a higher rate of correctly accepting the medication (94.6%) compared with uncertainty-aware AI help (86.2%) and black-box AI help (81.2%). Uncertainty-aware AI resulted in shorter reaction times than black-box AI and no AI help except in the scenario where "AI rejects the correct drug." Black-box AI did not lead to reduced reaction times compared with pharmacists acting alone.

Conclusions: Pharmacists' performance and reaction times varied by AI type and AI accuracy. Overall, uncertainty-aware AI resulted in faster decision-making and acted as a safeguard against bad AI advice to approve a misfilled medication. Conversely, black-box AI had the longest reaction times, and user performance degraded in the presence of bad AI advice. However, uncertainty-aware AI could result in unnecessary double-checks, but it is preferred over false negative advice, where patients receive the wrong medication. These results highlight the importance of well-designed AI that addresses users' needs, enhances performance, and avoids overreliance on AI.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
JMIR Medical Informatics
JMIR Medical Informatics Medicine-Health Informatics
CiteScore
7.90
自引率
3.10%
发文量
173
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: JMIR Medical Informatics (JMI, ISSN 2291-9694) is a top-rated, tier A journal which focuses on clinical informatics, big data in health and health care, decision support for health professionals, electronic health records, ehealth infrastructures and implementation. It has a focus on applied, translational research, with a broad readership including clinicians, CIOs, engineers, industry and health informatics professionals. Published by JMIR Publications, publisher of the Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR), the leading eHealth/mHealth journal (Impact Factor 2016: 5.175), JMIR Med Inform has a slightly different scope (emphasizing more on applications for clinicians and health professionals rather than consumers/citizens, which is the focus of JMIR), publishes even faster, and also allows papers which are more technical or more formative than what would be published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信