Over-Relying on Reliance: Towards Realistic Evaluations of AI-Based Clinical Decision Support
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
As AI-based clinical decision support (AI-CDS) is introduced in more and more aspects of healthcare services, HCI research plays an increasingly important role in designing for complementarity between AI and clinicians. However, current evaluations of AI-CDS often fail to capture when AI is and is not useful to clinicians. This position paper reflects on our work and influential AI-CDS literature to advocate for moving beyond evaluation metrics like Trust, Reliance, Acceptance, and Performance on the AI's task (what we term the "trap" of human-AI collaboration). Although these metrics can be meaningful in some simple scenarios, we argue that optimizing for them ignores important ways that AI falls short of clinical benefit, as well as ways that clinicians successfully use AI. As the fields of HCI and AI in healthcare develop new ways to design and evaluate CDS tools, we call on the community to prioritize ecologically valid, domain-appropriate study setups that measure the emergent forms of value that AI can bring to healthcare professionals.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 3 of its 21 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Apr 2025.
Builds on
3 of 21 references.
References · 3
- 2020Does the Whole Exceed its Parts? The Effect of AI Explanations on Complementary Team Performancecited by 399
- 2019Unremarkable AI: Fitting Intelligent Decision Support into Critical, Clinical Decision-Making Processescited by 53
- 2023Ignore, Trust, or Negotiate: Understanding Clinician Acceptance of AI-Based Treatment Recommendations in Health Carecited by 37
Built on by
Not cited yet.