Overcoming Medical Overuse with AI Assistance: An Experimental Investigation
人工智能辅助能否减少医疗过度使用：一项实验研究AI 解读 ↓
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明
本页整理公开书目信息，不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成，未完成全文核验，可能有误；具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本，未经模型改写。
DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要；缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。
本页为预印本版本；arXiv 收录、作者填写的期刊信息以及作者既有发表经历，都不单独证明本篇已接收。作者发表记录按 OpenAlex 身份与完整姓名、本站覆盖期刊 ISSN 及正式卷期核对，只展示已核实例，档案仍可能误合并。
引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录，不合计多个记录；关联记录可能包含正式发表版本，不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零，引用指标不代表论文质量。
关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配，同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列，再参考通用方法与发表日期。
分类依据与纠错
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类：摘要通过析因实验操纵金钱激励和 AI 可用性，研究干预对治疗行为与诊断表现的影响，直接对应因果推断。
反馈分类问题
正在核对关联版本…
代码、数据与补充材料
正在核对对应版本的资源…
人工智能辅助能否减少医疗过度使用：一项实验研究
- 研究问题
- 人工智能辅助能否减少医疗过度治疗、提高诊断准确性，其采纳和效果是否随医生面临的不同金钱激励而变化？
- 方法与思路
- 作者在医学院开展现场实验室实验，使用处方任务和三乘二析因设计，操纵固定、递增、惩罚过度治疗的报酬与 AI 辅助。
- 材料陈述的贡献
- 摘要称，惩罚过度治疗的激励下，AI 最多减少过度治疗率 62%；不同激励下诊断准确性提升 17% 至 37%。
- 阅读关注点
- 应核对实验分配方式、过度治疗及准确性的定义、百分比的计算基准，以及金钱与非金钱激励份额如何被量化。
- 阅读边界
- 仅据 arXiv 预印本摘要解读，同行评审及期刊接收未经核实；医学生任务结果能否推广至临床医生与患者尚不明确。
原文摘要
This study evaluates the effectiveness of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in mitigating medical overtreatment, a significant issue characterized by unnecessary interventions that inflate healthcare costs and pose risks to patients. We conducted a lab-in-the-field experiment at a medical school, utilizing a novel medical prescription task, manipulating monetary incentives and the availability of AI assistance among medical students using a three-by-two factorial design. We tested three incentive schemes: Flat (constant pay regardless of treatment quantity), Progressive (pay increases with the number of treatments), and Regressive (penalties for overtreatment) to assess their influence on the adoption and effectiveness of AI assistance. Our findings demonstrate that AI significantly reduced overtreatment rates by up to 62% in the Regressive incentive conditions where (prospective) physician and patient interests were most aligned. Diagnostic accuracy improved by 17% to 37%, depending on the incentive scheme. Adoption of AI advice was high, with approximately half of the participants modifying their decisions based on AI input across all settings. For policy implications, we quantified the monetary (57%) and non-monetary (43%) incentives of overtreatment and highlighted AI's potential to mitigate non-monetary incentives and enhance social welfare. Our results provide valuable insights for healthcare administrators considering AI integration into healthcare systems.