Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

AI workflow variations reduced perceived liability among hypothetical US jurors in an online vignette experiment

AI workflow variations reduced perceived liability among hypothetical US jurors in an online…
Photo by National Cancer Institute / Unsplash
Key Takeaway
Note that strategic workflow design may mitigate perceived liability risk in AI-assisted radiology.

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.

Study Details

Study typeRct
Sample sizen = 2,347
EvidenceLevel 2
PublishedMay 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
Background: With growing impetus to integrate artificial intelligence (AI) tools into radiology, clinical practices must navigate workflow redesign. This carries implications for medical malpractice liability. Methods: We conducted an online vignette experiment with United States adults who acted as hypothetical jurors in a malpractice case involving a missed intracranial hemorrhage. Participants (n=2,347) were randomized to one of 22 conditions: a no-AI control and 21 conditions involving a hypothetical AI system. These twenty-one conditions varied by whether (1) a single-read or double-read workflow was used, (2) the radiologist's initial interpretation was documented, (3) the radiologist changed their interpretation after viewing AI output, (4) the AI detected the abnormality, and (5) the AI error rate--False Discovery Rate (FDR) or False Omission Rate (FOR--was provided to participants only, both participants and radiologist, or neither. The primary outcome was perceived liability, assessed by whether the radiologist met their duty of care. Findings: Perceived liability differed across conditions (p<0.0001). Double-read workflows (p<0.0001), documenting initial interpretations (p=0.0125), and providing participants with AI error rates, including the FDR (p=0.0038) or FOR (p=0.0035), reduced perceived liability. Liability was also lower when AI was incorrect (p<0.0001). Radiologists' awareness of AI error rates did not significantly impact liability. Notably, we observed an erroneous change penalty: the greatest liability occurred when radiologists initially identified an abnormality but later changed their interpretation to normal after seeing that AI identified the case as normal; conversely, perceived liability was lowest with documented, double-read workflows. Interpretation: Double-read workflows with documented initial interpretations and disclosure of AI error rates reduce perceived liability, though changing a correct initial interpretation increases it. Strategic workflow design is critical for successful AI implementation that can mitigate malpractice risk.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.