AI workflow variations reduced perceived liability among hypothetical US jurors in an online vignette experiment
This online vignette experiment included a sample size of n=2,347 United States adults who acted as hypothetical jurors. The setting was online. The intervention or exposure involved 21 conditions involving a hypothetical AI system that varied by workflow type, documentation of initial interpretation, change of interpretation after AI output, AI detection of abnormality, and provision of AI error rates. The comparator was a no-AI control. The study phase was not reported.
The primary outcome was perceived liability assessed by whether the radiologist met their duty of care. Main results showed that perceived liability differed across conditions with a p value of p<0.0001. Specific conditions demonstrated a reduction in perceived liability with p values of p=0.0125, p=0.0038, and p=0.0035. Another condition showed perceived liability was lower with a p value of p<0.0001. In one condition, the greatest liability occurred with an increase. Absolute numbers were not reported for these outcomes.
Safety and tolerability data were not reported. Adverse events, serious adverse events, discontinuations, and tolerability were not reported. The study type was an online vignette experiment. Funding or conflicts were not reported. Limitations were not reported. Practice relevance indicates that strategic workflow design is critical for successful AI implementation that can mitigate malpractice risk.