Abstract
Clinical decision support tools (DSTs), powered by Artificial Intelligence (AI), promise to improve clinicians’ diagnostic and treatment decision-making. However, no AI model is always correct. DSTs must enable clinicians to validate each AI suggestion, convincing them to take the correct suggestions while rejecting its errors. While prior work often tried to do so by explaining AI’s inner workings or performance, we chose a different approach: We investigated how clinicians validated each other’s suggestions in practice (often by referencing scientific literature) and designed a new DST that embraces these naturalistic interactions. This design uses GPT-3 to draw literature evidence that shows the AI suggestions’ robustness and applicability (or the lack thereof). A prototyping study with clinicians from three disease areas proved this approach promising. Clinicians’ interactions with the prototype also revealed new design and research opportunities around (1) harnessing the complementary strengths of literature-based and predictive decision supports; (2) mitigating risks of de-skilling clinicians; and (3) offering low-data decision support with literature.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
