arXiv subjects

Miranda L. van Hooff

Publications and source records attributed to Miranda L. van Hooff.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

"It Feels Weird to Just Rely on AI": How Experienced Healthcare Professionals Work With Decision Support Systems in Clinical Practice

Decision support systems (DSS) assist with clinical decision-making. Little is known, however, about the decision-making process with DSS in clinical practice and the extent to which clinicians consider or rely on the predictions. Studies on human-AI decision-making usually focus on laypeople, simplified decision tasks, or one-shot interactions with prototypes that are not integrated into existing workflows. To gain insights from real-world practice, we conducted an online survey (n=12) and semi-structured interviews (n=10) with clinicians from two different medical cohorts each working with a DSS. Findings show, amongst other things, that the interaction with DSS changes as experience increases, the predictions become more important in complex cases, that decisions are discussed with colleagues, and that workflow integration affects decision-making. Our findings on human, technical, contextual, and organisational factors contribute to a socio-technical perspective on DSS reliance behaviour. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings for the design of DSS.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Friction in AI-Assisted Clinical Decision-Making: A Case Study on The Role of Questions and 'What-if' Scenarios

A major challenge in AI-supported decision-making is achieving appropriate reliance on AI. To reduce overreliance on AI, approaches for cognitive friction have been proposed that promote reflection and critical thinking. In this paper, we investigate how two such approaches are perceived by medical experts in a real-world decision task. We replicated an existing decision support system used in clinical practice and extended it with outputting reflective questions and what-if scenarios. We gathered clinicians' (n=7) feedback on this prototype through in-situ interviews. While the questions were perceived as unhelpful for reflective thinking in itself, their potential was seen in serving as reminders to consider relevant information, e.g., when attention wanes. Inspecting what-if scenarios was found useful for considering alternative outcomes and informing discussions with patients. Our participants regarded the prototype as a promising training tool for novice clinicians. From the clinicians' feedback, we make recommendations for designing friction in human-AI interactions.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

Lumbar spine segmentation in MR images: a dataset and a public benchmark

This paper presents a large publicly available multi-center lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) dataset with reference segmentations of vertebrae, intervertebral discs (IVDs), and spinal canal. The dataset includes 447 sagittal T1 and T2 MRI series from 218 patients with a history of low back pain and was collected from four different hospitals. An iterative data annotation approach was used by training a segmentation algorithm on a small part of the dataset, enabling semi-automatic segmentation of the remaining images. The algorithm provided an initial segmentation, which was subsequently reviewed, manually corrected, and added to the training data. We provide reference performance values for this baseline algorithm and nnU-Net, which performed comparably. Performance values were computed on a sequestered set of 39 studies with 97 series, which were additionally used to set up a continuous segmentation challenge that allows for a fair comparison of different segmentation algorithms. This study may encourage wider collaboration in the field of spine segmentation and improve the diagnostic value of lumbar spine MRI.

eess.IV↗