Automation bias in AI-assisted detection of cerebral aneurysms on time-of-flight MR angiography.

PURPOSE

To determine how automation bias (inclination of humans to overly trust-automated decision-making systems) can affect radiologists when interpreting AI-detected cerebral aneurysm findings in time-of-flight magnetic resonance angiography (TOF-MRA) studies.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Nine radiologists with varying levels of experience evaluated twenty TOF-MRA examinations for the presence of cerebral aneurysms. Every case was evaluated with and without assistance by the AI software © mdbrain, with a washout period of at least four weeks in-between. Half of the cases included at least one false-positive AI finding. Aneurysm ratings, follow-up recommendations, and reading times were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

RESULTS

False-positive AI results led to significantly higher suspicion of aneurysm findings (p = 0.01). Inexperienced readers further recommended significantly more intense follow-up examinations when presented with false-positive AI findings (p = 0.005). Reading times were significantly shorter with AI assistance in inexperienced (164.1 vs 228.2 s; p < 0.001), moderately experienced (126.2 vs 156.5 s; p < 0.009), and very experienced (117.9 vs 153.5 s; p < 0.001) readers alike.

CONCLUSION

Our results demonstrate the susceptibility of radiology readers to automation bias in detecting cerebral aneurysms in TOF-MRA studies when encountering false-positive AI findings. While AI systems for cerebral aneurysm detection can provide benefits, challenges in human-AI interaction need to be mitigated to ensure safe and effective adoption.