Abstract
In this paper we focus on a still neglected consequence of the adoption of AI in diagnostic settings: the increase of cases in which a human decision maker is called to settle a divergence between a human doctor and the AI, i.e., second opinion requests. We designed a user study, involving more than 70 medical doctors, to understand if the second opinions are affected by the first ones and whether the decision makers tend to trust the human interpretation more than the machine’s one. We observed significant effects on decision accuracy and a sort of “prejudice against the machine”, which varies with respect to the respondent profile. Some implications for sounder second opinion settings are given in the light of the results of this study.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
These kind of settings in the cardiological domain is also called ECG overreading.
- 2.
Other contributions call this bias “truth bias” [18], which is defined as the tendency of someone to believe that “others are telling the truth more often than they actually are” and hence to confirm what they say, mainly to spare themselves feelings of discomfort.
- 3.
ECG Wave-Maven, Copyright (c) 2001–2016 Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. All rights reserved. https://ecg.bidmc.harvard.edu/maven/mavenmain.asp Last Accessed: 17th May 2018.
- 4.
Accuracy was judged by two cardiologists according to whether the diagnosis was either the same given by the gold standard (i.e., the official diagnosis associated with the ECG), or it was somehow close to it and would have informed an appropriate treatment or management of the case at hand.
- 5.
We present the data in a 2 \(\times \) 2 contingency table and the P value associated with a Fisher’s exact test. The first figure in the pair represents the number of clinicians who discarded the given advice.
- 6.
To be precisely, we collected 249 interpretations in the first part of the study and 62 in the following one.
References
Attia, Z.I., et al.: Application of artificial intelligence to the standard 12 lead ECG to identify people with left ventricular dysfunction. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 71(11), A306 (2018)
Bond, R.R., et al.: Automation bias in medicine: the influence of automated diagnoses on interpreter accuracy and uncertainty when reading electrocardiograms. J. Electrocardiol. 51(6), S6–S11 (2018)
Brailer, D.J., Kroch, E., Pauly, M.V.: The impact of computer-assisted test interpretation on physician decision making: the case of electrocardiograms. Med. Decis. Making 17(1), 80–86 (1997)
Brauner, P., et al.: A game-based approach to raise quality awareness in ramp-up processes. Qual. Manag. J. 23(1), 55–69 (2016)
Dohare, A.K., Kumar, V., Kumar, R.: Detection of myocardial infarction in 12 lead ECG using support vector machine. Appl. Soft Comput. 64, 138–147 (2018)
Duijm, L.E., Groenewoud, J.H., Hendriks, J.H., de Koning, H.J.: Independent double reading of screening mammograms in the Netherlands: effect of arbitration following reader disagreements. Radiology 231(2), 564–570 (2004)
Goddard, K., Roudsari, A., Wyatt, J.C.: Automation bias: empirical results assessing influencing factors. Int. J. Med. Inform. 83(5), 368–375 (2014)
Kaba, A., Wishart, I., Fraser, K., Coderre, S., McLaughlin, K.: Are we at risk of groupthink in our approach to teamwork interventions in health care? Med. Educ. 50(4), 400–408 (2016)
Klein, G.: Naturalistic decision making. Hum. Factors 50(3), 456–460 (2008)
Kligfield, P., Gettes, L.S., Bailey, J.J., Childers, R., Deal, B.J., Hancock, E.W., Van Herpen, G., Kors, J.A., Macfarlane, P., Mirvis, D.M., et al.: Recommendations for the standardization and interpretation of the electrocardiogram: part I. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 49(10), 1109–1127 (2007)
Mannion, R., Thompson, C.: Systematic biases in group decision-making: implications for patient safety. Int. J. Qual. Health Care 26(6), 606–612 (2014)
Parasuraman, R., Manzey, D.H.: Complacency and bias in human use of automation: an attentional integration. Hum. Factors 52(3), 381–410 (2010)
Rajpurkar, P., Hannun, A.Y., Haghpanahi, M., Bourn, C., Ng, A.Y.: Cardiologistlevel arrhythmia detection with convolutional neural networks. Nat. Med. 25(1), 65–69 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-018-0268-3
Salerno, S.M., Alguire, P.C., Waxman, H.S.: Competency in interpretation of 12-lead electrocardiograms: a summary and appraisal of published evidence. Ann. Intern. Med. 138(9), 751–760 (2003)
Schläpfer, J., Wellens, H.J.: Computer-interpreted electrocardiograms: benefits and limitations. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 70(9), 1183–1192 (2017)
Sibbald, M., Davies, E.G., Dorian, P., Eric, H.: Electrocardiographic interpretation skills of cardiology residents: are they competent? Can. J. Cardiol. 30(12), 1721–1724 (2014)
Smith, S.W., et al.: A deep neural network learning algorithm outperforms a conventional algorithm for emergency department electrocardiogram interpretation. J. Electrocardiol. 52, 88–95 (2019)
Street, C.N., Masip, J.: The source of the truth bias: Heuristic processing? Scand. J. Psychol. 56(3), 254–263 (2015)
Strodthoff, N., Strodthoff, C.: Detecting and interpreting myocardial infarction using fully convolutional neural networks. Physiol. Measur. 40(1), 015001 (2019)
Tsai, T.L., Fridsma, D.B., Gatti, G.: Computer decision support as a source of interpretation error: the case of electrocardiograms. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 10(5), 478–483 (2003)
Acknowledgments
The author wishes to thank Dr. Raffaele Rasoini and Dr. Camilla Alderighi, cardiologists, for their help in the design and dissemination of the survey, and for the valuable suggestions after reviewing a preliminary draft of the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Cabitza, F. (2019). Biases Affecting Human Decision Making in AI-Supported Second Opinion Settings. In: Torra, V., Narukawa, Y., Pasi, G., Viviani, M. (eds) Modeling Decisions for Artificial Intelligence. MDAI 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11676. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26773-5_25
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26773-5_25
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-26772-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-26773-5
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)