Physician Ratings and Adoption of AI-Generated e-Consultation Advice: A Randomized Clinical Vignette Study.
rct · Level II
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 42690592.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1007/s11606-026-10777-w.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
Medically specialized generative artificial intelligence (GAI) systems are increasingly used by clinicians as a form of electronic consultation (e-consultation), yet little is known about how clinicians perceive the quality of GAI-generated consultation advice or how it influences the management of clinical scenarios. To assess physicians' ratings of GAI-generated e-consultation advice for management decisions and to examine whether labeling the e-consultation source as human or GAI influences perceived quality or uptake of recommendations. Randomized clinical vignette study. Internal medicine teaching faculty recruited from a single large academic medical center. Participants reviewed four clinical vignettes and rated e-consultation advice generated by a medically specialized GAI (OpenEvidence) for each vignette on completeness, actionability, clarity, appropriateness, trustworthiness, and use of evidence-based practice on a 5-point Likert scale. Participants were randomized to view advice labeled as being written by either a "specialist attending physician" or a "medically specialized artificial intelligence system." Changes in management decisions before and after viewing e-consultation advice were assessed by multiple-choice questions. Forty-four faculty completed the study. Mean perceived quality ratings were high across all domains (overall means 4.2-4.7 out of 5), with no significant differences between randomization groups (all p > 0.05). Participants chose the consult-recommended management choice more frequently after viewing e-consultation advice than before (81.8% vs. 37.5%; OR 8.43, 95% CI 5.00-14.28; p < 0.001). Labeling the advice as human- or GAI-generated did not significantly affect adoption of e-consult recommendations (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.51-2.75; p = 0.70). Internal medicine teaching faculty rated GAI-generated advice highly and frequently incorporated its recommendations into clinical decision-making for vignettes regardless of whether they were told the advice was human- or GAI-generated. Future studies should explore what factors influence the adoption of AI-generated recommendations and how curricula for faculty and trainees can shape consultation utilization.