Generative artificial intelligence chatbots are undergoing a rapid surge in popularity and use adoption across various industries. Healthcare is one of the many industries undergoing shifts in knowledge acquisition and decision-making as medical professionals learn to interact with the technology and implement it in various aspects of their everyday practice. As a result, healthcare professionals and institutions need to understand the risks involved when generative AI is introduced into information-seeking and decision-making processes, as well as how individual differences among users shift the type of risk, as well as its potential for occurring. The present research presents a framework to guide understanding of risks and opportunities at the intersection of medical expertise, AI use-expertise, and generative AI-dependence. The framework will help researchers and healthcare professionals understand human-AI risk, drive the technology towards practical implementations, and design generative AI systems which are transparent and flexible.
References
1.
AbdullahiT.SinghR.EickhoffC. (2024). Learning to Make Rare and Complex Diagnoses With Generative AI Assistance: Qualitative Study of Popular Large Language Models. JMIR Medical Education, 10(1), e51391.
2.
AlasadiE. A.BaizC. R. (2023). Generative AI in education and research: Opportunities, concerns, and solutions. Journal of Chemical Education, 100(8), 2965-2971.
3.
BernerE. S.GraberM. L. (2008). Overconfidence as a cause of diagnostic error in medicine. The American journal of medicine, 121(5), S2-S23.
4.
ClusmannJ.KolbingerF. R.MutiH. S.CarreroZ. I.EckardtJ. N.LalehN. G.. . . KatherJ. N. (2023). The future landscape of large language models in medicine. Communications Medicine, 3(1), 141.
5.
Dell’AcquaF.McFowlandE.IIIMollickE.Lifshitz-AssafH.KelloggK.C.RajendranS.KrayerL.CandelonF.LakhaniK. (2023). Navigating the Jagged Technological Frontier: Field Experimental Evidence of AI on Knowledge Worker Productivity & Quality. Harvard Business School Technology & Operations Management Unit. Working Paper No. 24-013.
6.
DrorI. E.Pascual-LeoneA.RamachandranV. (2011). The paradox of human expertise: why experts get it wrong. In KapurN. (ed.) The paradoxical brain, (pp. 177-188). Cambridge University Press.
7.
FarukL. I. D.RohanR.NinrutsirikunU.PalD. (2023, December). University Students’ Acceptance and Usage of Generative AI (ChatGPT) from a Psycho-Technical Perspective. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Advances in Information Technology (pp. 1-8).
8.
FittsP.M. (Ed.) (1951). Human engineering for an effective air-navigation and traffic-control system. National Research Council.
9.
FrometE. (2021). Cultural differences in communicating with chatbots [Bachelor Thesis]. Radboud University.
10.
GilsonA.SafranekC. W.HuangT.SocratesV.ChiL.TaylorR. A.ChartashD. (2023). How does ChatGPT perform on the United States medical licensing examination? The implications of large language models for medical education and knowledge assessment. JMIR Medical Education, 9(1), e45312.
11.
KarabacakM.OzkaraB. B.MargetisK.WintermarkM.BisdasS. (2023). The Advent of Generative Language Models in Medical Education. JMIR Medical Education, 9, e48163.
12.
MarangunićN.GranićA. (2015). Technology acceptance model: a literature review from 1986 to 2013. Universal Access in the Information Society, 14, 81-95.
13.
McDuffD.SchaekermannM.TuT.PalepuA.WangA.GarrisonJ.. . . NatarajanV. (2023). Towards accurate differential diagnosis with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.00164.
14.
MeskoB. (2023). The ChatGPT (Generative Artificial Intelligence) Revolution Has Made Artificial Intelligence Approachable for Medical Professionals. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 25, e48392.
15.
MeskóB.TopolE. J. (2023). The imperative for regulatory oversight of large language models (or generative AI) in healthcare. NPJ Digital Medicine, 6(1), 120.
16.
Morahan-MartinJ.SchumacherP. (2007). Attitudinal and experiential predictors of technological expertise. Computers in human behavior, 23(5), 2230-2239.
ParasuramanR.SheridanT. B.WickensC. D. (2000). A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on systems, man, and cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans, 30(3), 286-297.
19.
PatelV. L.ArochaJ. F.KaufmanD. R. (1994). Diagnostic reasoning and medical expertise. In Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 31, pp. 187-252). Academic Press.
20.
ShneidermanB. (2020). Human-centered artificial intelligence: Reliable, safe & trustworthy. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 36(6), 495-504.
21.
SinghH.ThomasE. J.WilsonL.KellyP. A.PietzK.ElkeebD.SinghalG. (2010). Errors of diagnosis in pediatric practice: a multisite survey. Pediatrics, 126(1), 70-79
22.
SinghalK.AziziS.TuT.MahdaviS. S.WeiJ.ChungH. W.. . . NatarajanV. (2023). Large language models encode clinical knowledge. Nature, 620(7972), 172-180.
23.
SætraH. S. (2023). Generative AI: Here to stay, but for good?. Technology in Society, 75, 102372.
TsaiY. T.LinW. A. (2018, June). Design of an intelligent cognition assistant for people with cognitive impairment. In 2018 IEEE 20th International Conference on High Performance Computing and Communications; IEEE 16th International Conference on Smart City; IEEE 4th International Conference on Data Science and Systems (HPCC/SmartCity/DSS) (pp. 1207-1212). IEEE.
26.
WattsF. M.DoodA. J.ShultzG. V.RodriguezJ. M. G. (2023). Comparing Student and Generative Artificial Intelligence Chatbot Responses to Organic Chemistry Writing-to-Learn Assignments. Journal of Chemical Education, 100(10), 3806-3817.
