Abstract
Background Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly changing the legal landscape of radiology. Results from a previous experiment suggested that providing AI error rates can reduce perceived radiologist culpability, as judged by mock jury members (4). The current study advances this work by examining whether the radiologist’s behavior also impacts perceptions of liability. Methods. Participants (n=282) read about a hypothetical malpractice case where a 50-year-old who visited the Emergency Department with acute neurological symptoms received a brain CT scan to determine if bleeding was present. An AI system was used by the radiologist who interpreted imaging. The AI system correctly flagged the case as abnormal. Nonetheless, the radiologist concluded no evidence of bleeding, and the blood-thinner t-PA was administered. Participants were randomly assigned to either a 1.) single-read condition, where the radiologist interpreted the CT once after seeing AI feedback, or 2.) a double-read condition, where the radiologist interpreted the CT twice, first without AI and then with AI feedback. Participants were then told the patient suffered irreversible brain damage due to the missed brain bleed, resulting in the patient (plaintiff) suing the radiologist (defendant). Participants indicated whether the radiologist met their duty of care to the patient (yes/no). Results. Hypothetical jurors were more likely to side with the plaintiff in the single-read condition (106/142, 74.7%) than in the double-read condition (74/140, 52.9%), p=0.0002. Conclusion. This suggests that the penalty for disagreeing with correct AI can be mitigated when images are interpreted twice, or at least if a radiologist gives an interpretation before AI is used.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive external funding.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethics committee/IRB of Brown University Health waived ethical approval for this work.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.
