A new federally funded study published in JAMA Network Open found that U.S. adults were “significantly more likely to trust in and choose medical AI in scenarios with better AI performance, [FDA] approval, national and local certifications, the presence of a clinician, and the use of representative data.”
The study measured “how specific features influenced choices, revealing that AI accuracy outweighed every other attribute.” Respondents weighed in on hypothetical AI-assisted medical visits, and they “repeatedly chose between paired diagnostic scenarios that varied by six features, including AI performance level, the presence of a clinician, federal or institutional oversight, and the quality of data used to train the system.” The study generated 36,000 observations on 12 mock visits.
Participants were dramatically more likely to select visits described as “performing at or above the level of medical specialists.” However, accuracy alone wasn’t enough; the presence of a clinician increased the likelihood of choosing a visit by 18.4%. Performance still mattered more to participants than having a human in the loop, and oversight was important too.
The results of the research suggest that “public acceptance of medical AI may hinge less on abstract enthusiasm for innovation and more on visible safeguards and demonstrated effectiveness, the researchers say.”
