Intelligent decision support in medical triage: are people robust to biased advice?
emergency care
ethics
health intelligence
Journal
Journal of public health (Oxford, England)
ISSN: 1741-3850
Titre abrégé: J Public Health (Oxf)
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101188638
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 08 2023
28 08 2023
Historique:
received:
05
08
2022
accepted:
23
12
2023
medline:
1
9
2023
pubmed:
23
3
2023
entrez:
22
3
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Intelligent artificial agents ('agents') have emerged in various domains of human society (healthcare, legal, social). Since using intelligent agents can lead to biases, a common proposed solution is to keep the human in the loop. Will this be enough to ensure unbiased decision making? To address this question, an experimental testbed was developed in which a human participant and an agent collaboratively conduct triage on patients during a pandemic crisis. The agent uses data to support the human by providing advice and extra information about the patients. In one condition, the agent provided sound advice; the agent in the other condition gave biased advice. The research question was whether participants neutralized bias from the biased artificial agent. Although it was an exploratory study, the data suggest that human participants may not be sufficiently in control to correct the agent's bias. This research shows how important it is to design and test for human control in concrete human-machine collaboration contexts. It suggests that insufficient human control can potentially result in people being unable to detect biases in machines and thus unable to prevent machine biases from affecting decisions.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Intelligent artificial agents ('agents') have emerged in various domains of human society (healthcare, legal, social). Since using intelligent agents can lead to biases, a common proposed solution is to keep the human in the loop. Will this be enough to ensure unbiased decision making?
METHODS
To address this question, an experimental testbed was developed in which a human participant and an agent collaboratively conduct triage on patients during a pandemic crisis. The agent uses data to support the human by providing advice and extra information about the patients. In one condition, the agent provided sound advice; the agent in the other condition gave biased advice. The research question was whether participants neutralized bias from the biased artificial agent.
RESULTS
Although it was an exploratory study, the data suggest that human participants may not be sufficiently in control to correct the agent's bias.
CONCLUSIONS
This research shows how important it is to design and test for human control in concrete human-machine collaboration contexts. It suggests that insufficient human control can potentially result in people being unable to detect biases in machines and thus unable to prevent machine biases from affecting decisions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36947701
pii: 7076576
doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdad005
pmc: PMC10470333
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
689-696Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Faculty of Public Health. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Références
Br Med Bull. 2021 Jun 10;138(1):5-15
pubmed: 34057458
Front Robot AI. 2018 Feb 28;5:15
pubmed: 33500902
JAMA. 2019 Dec 24;322(24):2377-2378
pubmed: 31755905
Medicina (Kaunas). 2020 Mar 20;56(3):
pubmed: 32244930
Br Med Bull. 2021 Sep 10;139(1):4-15
pubmed: 34405854