arXiv AI
AI Can Be Easily Persuaded in Clinical Decision Making
Read the original on arXiv AI →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
Related stories
arXiv AI
Jul 1
Agentic AI Enhances Physician Trust in Clinical Decision Making
arXiv:2606. 30658v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Medical AI has shifted from reasoning to agentic AI, a new paradigm that autonomously invokes external tools during reasoning, rendering intermediate reasoning steps and tool outputs transparent to users.
arXiv AI
Aug 12
Selective Prediction Reduces the Negative Effects of Automation Bias Overall but Increases False Negatives
arXiv:2508. 07617v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: AI has the potential to augment human decision making.
arXiv AI
Jul 1
Scientific Explanations in Health Sciences: Causality, Trust, and Epistemic Adequacy
arXiv:2606. 31616v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Medical Artificial Intelligence (AI) is widely expected to transform clinical practice, yet the decision-making processes of many Machine Learning (ML) models remain opaque.
arXiv AI
Jun 2
Algorithmic Authority and the Clinical Standard of Care
arXiv:2606. 00044v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The integration of artificial intelligence into clinical medicine creates a fundamental tension between algorithmic probabilistic reasoning and the experiential intuition of expert physicians; applying Lawrence Lessig's \enquote{Code is Law} framework, I argue that the architecture of clinical AI systems already functions as de facto medical regulation, reshaping liability and the standard of care.
arXiv AI
Sep 3
Examining the Vulnerability of Multi-Agent Medical Systems to Human Interventions for Clinical Reasoning
The paper investigates how human interventions at specific fault points—moments when an AI agent’s reasoning is most vulnerable—affect the diagnostic accuracy of multi‑agent medical systems. Using the MedQA dataset, the authors found that correct interventions can boost baseline accuracy by up to 40%, whereas incorrect or bias‑related interventions can reduce performance by up to 6% and increase diagnostic drift and uncertainty. The study also highlights behavioral parallels between cognitive biases observed in simulated agent conversations and real‑world clinical practice, such as premature closure and susceptibility to misleading cues.
arXiv AI
Aug 25
The Clinician's Veto: Navigating Trust, Liability, and Uncertainty in Autonomous AI Prescribing
The paper discusses how autonomous AI systems are moving from advisory to agentic roles in medication prescribing, citing recent U.S. legislation and a Utah pilot program. It argues that three architectural features—calibrated per‑prediction confidence, clear differentiation between epistemic and aleatoric uncertainty, and inferential transparency—are essential for safe autonomous prescribing. A survey of 136 U.S. clinicians shows they require a confidence‑based escalation mechanism, prefer different handling of uncertainty types, and will only accept liability when transparency allows informed decision‑making.