{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,4]],"date-time":"2026-10-04T01:57:47Z","timestamp":1791079067894,"version":"4.1.0"},"reference-count":18,"publisher":"JMIR Publications Inc.","content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["J Med Internet Res"],"abstract":"Abstract<\/jats:title>\n \n Background<\/jats:title>\n AI is increasingly used to support clinical diagnosis, but the appropriate allocation of responsibility between clinicians and AI remains unclear. Different responsibility structures may influence how clinicians evaluate AI recommendations and revise their diagnostic judgments.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Objective<\/jats:title>\n This study aimed to examine how different physician-AI responsibility allocation structures affect diagnostic accuracy and confidence calibration during AI-assisted diagnosis.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Methods<\/jats:title>\n This individually randomized, 4-arm, parallel-group controlled experiment was conducted in a simulated clinical environment on the Credamo platform (Beijing Yishumofa Technology Co, Ltd). A total of 105 licensed physicians were randomly assigned to the dynamic responsibility, full responsibility, equal responsibility, or control group. Nine participants who failed the prespecified attention checks were excluded from the primary analysis, resulting in an analytic sample of 96 physicians. Participants completed 10 clinical vignette\u2013based diagnostic tasks. The only between-group difference was the responsibility allocation structure. Primary outcomes were final diagnostic accuracy and confidence calibration; secondary outcomes included agreement rates and posttask subjective evaluations.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Results<\/jats:title>\n \n Responsibility allocation structures significantly modulated diagnostic quality. Compared to the control group, the full responsibility structure yielded no significant improvement in accuracy (mean 0.596, SD 0.152 vs 0.592, SD 0.169; mean difference 0.004, 95% CI \u22120.089 to 0.098;\n P<\/jats:italic>\n =.93) or confidence calibration (mean 0.193, SD 0.134 vs 0.150, SD 0.145; mean difference 0.043, 95% CI \u22120.038 to 0.124;\n P<\/jats:italic>\n =.29), while the equal responsibility structure showed suggestive evidence of lower diagnostic accuracy (mean 0.496, SD 0.185 vs 0.592, SD 0.169; mean difference \u22120.096, 95% CI \u22120.199 to 0.007;\n P<\/jats:italic>\n =.07) and significantly poorer confidence calibration (mean 0.383, SD 0.175 vs 0.150, SD 0.145; mean difference 0.233, 95% CI 0.139 to 0.326;\n P<\/jats:italic>\n <.001). Conversely, the dynamic responsibility structure demonstrated superior performance, significantly improving diagnostic accuracy (mean 0.717, SD 0.105 vs 0.592, SD 0.169; mean difference 0.125, 95% CI 0.043 to 0.207;\n P<\/jats:italic>\n =.004) and reducing confidence calibration (mean 0.040, SD 0.084 vs 0.150, SD 0.105; mean difference \u22120.110, 95% CI \u22120.179 to \u22120.040;\n P<\/jats:italic>\n =.003).\n <\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Conclusion<\/jats:title>\n The dynamic responsibility structure may enable health care organizations to use AI more fully and appropriately without compromising clinicians\u2019 diagnostic performance, thereby improving the safety and quality of AI-assisted diagnosis.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.2196\/97588","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2026,7,23]],"date-time":"2026-07-23T20:40:55Z","timestamp":1784839255000},"page":"e97588-e97588","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":1,"title":["Impact of Responsibility Allocation Structures on Diagnostic Quality in AI-Assisted Diagnosis: Randomized Controlled Experiment"],"prefix":"10.2196","volume":"28","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0009-0009-9365-2393","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Tianya","family":"Liu","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-3417-635X","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Ji","family":"Wu","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"1010","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2026,7,23]]},"reference":[{"issue":"1","key":"R1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"125","DOI":"10.5859\/KAIS.2025.34.1.125","article-title":"AI as a collaborator: the impact of generative AI collaboration on users\u2019 subjective effort and responsibility perceptions [Article in Korean]","volume":"34","author":"Choi","journal-title":"J Inf Syst"},{"issue":"6","key":"R2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1142","DOI":"10.1080\/1369118X.2023.2239895","article-title":"Responsibility gap or responsibility shift? The attribution of criminal responsibility in human\u2013machine interaction","volume":"27","author":"Simmler","journal-title":"Inf Commun Soc"},{"issue":"4","key":"R3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"299","DOI":"10.1007\/s10676-016-9403-3","article-title":"Robots, law and the retribution gap","volume":"18","author":"Danaher","journal-title":"Ethics Inf Technol"},{"issue":"1","key":"R4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1","DOI":"10.1007\/s10676-025-09823-8","article-title":"What responsibility gaps are and what they should be","volume":"27","author":"Veluwenkamp","journal-title":"Ethics Inf Technol"},{"issue":"4","key":"R5","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"747","DOI":"10.1007\/s43681-022-00135-x","article-title":"Diffused responsibility: attributions of responsibility in the use of AI-driven clinical decision support systems","volume":"2","author":"Bleher","journal-title":"AI Ethics"},{"issue":"Suppl 3","key":"R6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"A183","DOI":"10.1136\/bmjoq-2025-QSHU.243","article-title":"243\u2005Leveraging AI to enhance patient safety and its associated implications","volume":"14","author":"Azad","journal-title":"BMJ Open Qual"},{"issue":"11","key":"R7","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"501","DOI":"10.1038\/s42256-019-0114-4","article-title":"Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI","volume":"1","author":"Mittelstadt","journal-title":"Nat Mach Intell"},{"key":"R8","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.2196\/81743","article-title":"Recruiting a national sample of first response agencies to participate in an overdose prevention research project: randomized controlled trial and feasibility study","volume":"10","author":"Agley","journal-title":"JMIR Form Res"},{"key":"R9","unstructured":"Liu T . Diagnostic quality of dynamic responsibility groups in clinical decision-making. AsPredicted preregistration record. URL: https:\/\/aspredicted.org\/b5ib3v.pdf [Accessed 27-12-2025]"},{"key":"R10","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.2196\/82769","article-title":"A gamified mobile health intervention to promote physical activity, executive function, and mental health in college students: randomized controlled trial","volume":"28","author":"Yang","journal-title":"J Med Internet Res"},{"key":"R11","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.2196\/85469","article-title":"Motor imagery and action observation in breast cancer survivors: protocol for a randomized controlled trial","volume":"15","author":"Arnal-Vall\u00e9s","journal-title":"JMIR Res Protoc"},{"issue":"1","key":"R12","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1136\/bmjopen-2025-106400","article-title":"Randomised controlled community trial assessing efficacy of the AWACAN-ED public toolkit to improve cancer symptom awareness and intention to seek help in South Africa and Zimbabwe: study protocol","volume":"16","author":"Scott","journal-title":"BMJ Open"},{"issue":"1","key":"R13","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1007\/s13347-022-00506-6","article-title":"When doctors and AI interact: on human responsibility for artificial risks","volume":"35","author":"Verdicchio","journal-title":"Philos Technol"},{"issue":"4","key":"R14","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1136\/bmjopen-2018-025380","article-title":"Day of the week to tweet: a randomised controlled trial","volume":"9","author":"Jayaram","journal-title":"BMJ Open"},{"issue":"5","key":"R15","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"854","DOI":"10.1177\/00222437251332898","article-title":"Artificial intelligence on call: the physician\u2019s decision of whether to use AI in clinical practice","volume":"62","author":"Dai","journal-title":"J Mark Res"},{"issue":"4","key":"R16","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1002\/bdm.2415","article-title":"Diffusion of responsibility for actions with advice","volume":"37","author":"Cooper","journal-title":"J Behav Decis Mak"},{"key":"R17","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.3389\/fsurg.2022.862322","article-title":"Legal and ethical consideration in artificial intelligence in healthcare: who takes responsibility?","volume":"9","author":"Naik","journal-title":"Front Surg"},{"key":"R18","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.2196\/81628","article-title":"Integrating generative AI into patient-centered clinical decision support: viewpoint on research and practice considerations","volume":"28","author":"Dullabh","journal-title":"J Med Internet Res"}],"container-title":["Journal of Medical Internet Research"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/www.jmir.org\/2026\/1\/e97588","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,7,31]],"date-time":"2026-07-31T22:23:12Z","timestamp":1785536592000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/www.jmir.org\/2026\/1\/e97588"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2026,7,23]]},"references-count":18,"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2196\/97588","relation":{},"ISSN":["1438-8871"],"issn-type":[{"value":"1438-8871","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2026,7,23]]},"article-number":"v28i1e97588"}}