Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSS) utilizing machine learning (ML) classifiers have demonstrated substantial potential for improving diagnostic accuracy across various medical domains. However, concerns regarding automation bias, diminished sense of agency, and over-reliance on these systems remain, particularly in clinical settings where decision-making autonomy is critical.To address these challenges, we propose "Judicial AI,"an innovative interaction protocol aimed at reducing automation bias and preserving a sense of agency. This system presents contrasting explanations to medical professionals rather than definitive recommendations, encouraging user engagement and critical evaluation.Before adopting interaction protocols that avoid definitive recommendations, it is important to assess whether such an approach impacts diagnostic accuracy, and if so, how. This paper reports an exploratory study investigating the efficacy of a Judicial CDSS in the diagnosis of vertebral fractures from X-ray images. Sixteen medical professionals, comprising spine surgeons and radiologists, participated in the diagnosis of 18 X-ray images, which were carefully selected to represent particularly difficult and complex cases. Diagnosticians first recorded their decisions independently and then with support from the Judicial AI, which provided activation maps for opposing diagnoses.Our findings show a significant improvement in diagnostic accuracy for complex cases among experienced users (p =.045), with an overall accuracy increase of 0.24. Confidence levels also rose, particularly in the case of complex diagnoses (p =.034). However, the protocol was less beneficial for less experienced users, suggesting that cognitive load might be a limiting factor.These results suggest that Judicial AI, which frames decision-makers as the ultimate authority in the decision-making process, may be an effective tool for mitigating automation bias and preserving a sense of agency in clinical environments.

The integration of AI into decision-making processes offers substantial benefits, particularly in enhancing accuracy and efficiency. However, long-term consequences, such as over-reliance, skill erosion, and loss of human agency, present significant challenges. This study investigates various human-AI collaboration protocols~-~traditional, inhibition, displacement, and replacement~-~across multiple medical settings, including radiological imaging, ECG, and endoscopy. We introduce a novel framework that includes a choice nomogram and qualitative assessment tool, designed to optimize both decision accuracy and socio-technical impacts. Our findings reveal that the displacement protocol consistently outperformed others in several contexts, achieving 87% accuracy in MRI analysis, 89% in x-ray reading and 85% in endoscopy; conversely, the traditional protocol was most effective only in ECG analysis, with 82% accuracy. These results demonstrate that no single protocol is universally optimal, highlighting the need for context-specific selection to ensure effective and sustainable AI-supported decision-making, with a focus on balancing short-term performance with long-term human factors.

This paper examines a kind of explainable AI, centered around what we term pro-hoc explanations, that is a form of support that consists of offering alternative explanations (one for each possible outcome) instead of a specific post-hoc explanation following specific advice. Specifically, our support mechanism utilizes explanations by examples, featuring analogous cases for each category in a binary setting. Pro-hoc explanations are an instance of what we called frictional AI, a general class of decision support aimed at achieving a useful compromise between the increase of decision effectiveness and the mitigation of cognitive risks, such as over-reliance, automation bias and deskilling. To illustrate an instance of frictional AI, we conducted an empirical user study to investigate its impact on the task of radiological detection of vertebral fractures in x-rays. Our study engaged 16 orthopedists in a 'human-first, second-opinion' interaction protocol. In this protocol, clinicians first made initial assessments of the x-rays without AI assistance and then provided their final diagnosis after considering the pro-hoc explanations. Our findings indicate that physicians, particularly those with less experience, perceived pro-hoc XAI support as significantly beneficial, even though it did not notably enhance their diagnostic accuracy. However, their increased confidence in final diagnoses suggests a positive overall impact. Given the promisingly high effect size observed, our results advocate for further research into pro-hoc explanations specifically, and into the broader concept of frictional AI.