How Following Medical Artificial Intelligence Advice Can Mitigate Malpractice Liability: Cross-National Insights from a Randomized Trial.
Artificial intelligence (AI) increasingly influences clinical decision-making, yet its recommendations may diverge from standard care. Although malpractice concerns are thought to discourage physicians from following AI advice, experimental evidence from the United States suggests the opposite: lay jurors are more likely to hold physicians liable when they reject AI recommendations. Whether this pattern extends to systems in which court-appointed experts, not lay jurors, determine liability remains unknown. Methods: To examine how physicians and laypeople in expert-based and lay-juror legal systems evaluate physicians' acceptance or rejection of AI recommendations, particularly when those recommendations deviate from standard care, we designed a randomized vignette study: a 2 × 2 factorial design varying the AI recommendation (standard vs. nonstandard care) and a fictional physician's decision (accept vs. reject). The study was conducted online in 2023 among nationally representative samples of U.S. and German adults and from 2023 to 2024 among German physicians. In total, 387 German physicians, 2291 U.S. adults, and 2283 German adults participated; those not completing the survey or failing attention checks were excluded per preregistered criteria. Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 vignettes, varying the AI recommendation (standard vs. nonstandard care) and physician's decision (accept vs. reject). The reasonableness of the fictional physician's decision was measured, rated by participants on a Likert scale. Results: Analysis, following preregistered exclusion criteria, included 248 German physicians, 1202 U.S. adults, and 1358 German adults. Physicians accepting standard-care AI recommendations were rated more reasonable than those rejecting them (U.S. laypeople: t = 5.36; 95% CI, 0.45-0.97; P < 0.001; German physicians: t = 2.47; 95% CI, 0.14-1.30; P = 0.02; German laypeople: t = 4.14; 95% CI, 0.27-0.76; P < 0.001). Ratings of physicians accepting versus rejecting AI nonstandard-care recommendations were statistically equivalent. Equivalence was tested at an α-value of 0.05 using a two 1-sided tests procedure, reported with 90% CIs per standard convention (U.S. laypeople: t = -4.90; 90% CI, -0.1 to 0.36; P < 0.001; German physicians: t = -1.76; 90% CI, -0.12 to 0.67; P = 0.04; German laypeople: t = 5.35; 90% CI, -0.35 to 0.06; P < 0.001). Conclusion: Across the United States and Germany, samples representative of lay jurors and court-appointed experts viewed accepting standard-care AI advice as more reasonable, whereas accepting or rejecting nonstandard-care AI advice was judged similarly. Contrary to predictions, malpractice liability regimes do not necessarily pose a barrier to AI use in precision medicine.