Artificial Intelligence (AI) will have unintended consequences for radiology. When a radiologist misses an abnormality on an image, their liability may differ according to whether or not AI also missed the abnormality. U.S. adults viewed a vignette describing a radiologist being sued for missing a brain bleed (N=652) or cancer (N=682). Participants were randomized to one of five conditions. In four conditions, they were told an AI system was used. Either AI agreed with the radiologist, also failing to find pathology (AI agree) or did find pathology (AI disagree). In the AI agree+FOR condition, AI agreed with the radiologist and an AI false omission rate (FOR) of 1% was presented. In the AI disagree+FDR condition, AI disagreed and an AI false discovery rate (FDR) of 50% was presented. There was also a no AI control condition. Otherwise, vignettes were identical. Participants indicated whether the radiologist met their duty of care as a proxy for whether they would side with defense (radiologist) or plaintiff in trial. Participants were more likely to side with the plaintiff in the AI disagree vs. AI agree condition (brain bleed: 72.9% vs. 50.0%, p=0.0054; cancer: 78.7% vs. 63.5%, p=0.00365) and in the AI disagree vs. no AI condition (brain bleed: 72.9% vs. 56.3%, p=0.0054; cancer: 78.7% vs. 65.2%, p=0.00895). Participants were less likely to side with the plaintiff when FDR or FOR were provided: AI disagree vs AI disagree+FDR (brain bleed: 72.9% vs. 48.8%, p=0.00005; cancer: 78.7% vs. 73.1%, p=0.1507), and AI agree vs. AI agree+FOR (brain bleed: 50.0% vs. 34.0%, p=0.0044; cancer: 63.5% vs. 56.4%, p=0.1085). Radiologists who failed to find an abnormality are viewed as more culpable when they used an AI system that detected the abnormality. Presenting participants with AI accuracy data decreased perceived liability. These findings have relevance for courtroom proceedings.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

This study was funded by the Department of Diagnostic Imaging Research at Rhode Island Hospital

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

Lifespan IRB #1 of Rhode Island Hospital gave ethical approval for this work

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors