ArticleNPJ digital medicine2025
Peer perceptions of clinicians using generative AI in medical decision-making.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- A cognitive layer architecture to support large-language model performance in psychotherapy interactions.Nature medicine · 2026Trial
- Financial incentives increase uptake and perceived effectiveness of autonomous medical AI, yet patients still seek human reconfirmation.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Patterns of AI Use in Clinical Work by Hospitalists: Survey Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Integrating trust into artificial intelligence for medicine: using diabetes as the exemplar disease.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Article
- AI-Enhanced Continuing Professional Development as an Evolving Sociotechnical System: Multimethod Theoretical Framework Development Study.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in multidisciplinary tumor boards enhancing decision making and clinical outcomes in oncology.iScience · 2025Review
- Trust is all you Need: Reinforcing the Patient-physician Bond in Times of AI.Journal of medical systems · 2025Article
- A Brief Review of Artificial Intelligence in Living Kidney Donation.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study investigates how a physician's use of generative AI (GenAI) in medical decision‑making is perceived by peer clinicians. In a randomized experiment, 276 practicing clinicians evaluated one of three vignettes depicting a physician: (1) using no GenAI (Control), (2) using GenAI as a primary decision-making tool (GenAI-primary), and (3) using GenAI as a verification tool (GenAI-verify). Participants rated the physician depicted in the GenAI‑primary condition significantly lower in clinical skill (on a 1-7 scale; mean = 3.79) than in the Control condition (5.93, p < 0.001). Framing GenAI use as verification partially mitigated this effect (4.99, p < 0.001). Similar patterns appeared for perceived overall healthcare experience and competence. Participants also acknowledged GenAI's value in improving accuracy (4.30, p < 0.002) and rated institutionally customized GenAI more favorably (4.96, p < 0.001). These findings suggest that while clinicians see GenAI as helpful, its use can negatively impact peer evaluations. These effects can be reduced, but not fully eliminated, by framing it as a verification aid.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.