Tool and Trainer? Experimental Evidence on Human Learning from Predictive AI in Cancer Diagnosis

Lung cancer tissue diagnostics is complex, as therapy decisions in precision oncology rely on the integration of histomorphological, immunohistochemical, and molecular features. Yet pathological assessment remains largely visual and semi-quantitative and shows interobserver variability, while existing artificial intelligence (AI) tools cover only selected tasks, rarely reach generalizable expert-level performance, and lack prospective clinical validation. To address these challenges, we developed and clinically validated LUCAID, an agentic AI system for precision lung cancer pathology. An integrative agent couples diagnostic reasoning with nine modules that cover the full routine workflow, from quality control, tumor detection and segmentation, histological subtyping, tumor microenvironment profiling, tumor cellularity quantification, and predictive biomarker scoring (PD-L1, MET, TROP-2) to automated structured report generation. LUCAID enables users to interactively query the module outputs and generate reports that contextualize the results. Against large-scale expert ground-truth annotations, the analysis modules achieved F1 scores of 0.82-0.95. In prospective clinical validation, LUCAID reached 93.0% concordance with an expert-panel adjudicated reference standard across clinically actionable decisions, compared with 68.3-81.1% for five experienced thoracic pathologists.

We present PULSE, a medical reasoning agent that combines a domain-tuned large language model with scientific literature retrieval to support diagnostic decision-making in complex real-world cases. To evaluate its capabilities, we curated a benchmark of 82 authentic endocrinology case reports encompassing a broad spectrum of disease types and incidence levels. In controlled experiments, we compared PULSE's performance against physicians with varying levels of expertise-from residents to senior specialists-and examined how AI assistance influenced human diagnostic reasoning. PULSE attained expert-competitive accuracy, outperforming residents and junior specialists while matching senior specialist performance at both Top@1 and Top@4 thresholds. Unlike physicians, whose accuracy declined with disease rarity, PULSE maintained stable performance across incidence tiers. The agent also exhibited adaptive reasoning, increasing output length with case difficulty in a manner analogous to the longer deliberation observed among expert clinicians. When used collaboratively, PULSE enabled physicians to correct initial errors and broaden diagnostic hypotheses, but also introduced risks of automation bias. The study explores both serial and concurrent collaboration workflows, revealing that PULSE offers robust support across common and rare presentations. These findings underscore both the promise and the limitations of language model-based agents in clinical diagnosis, and offer a framework for evaluating their role in real-world decision-making.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools are widely used to support decision making in tasks and domains where no immediate performance feedback is available. In these settings, users cannot learn to adjust their reliance behavior over time through trial and error. However, little is known about how novice users calibrate reliance on AI when external feedback is unavailable, or whether AI explanations can support calibration in its absence. We introduce reliance calibration as an organizing construct for studying how novice users dynamically adjust reliance behavior, and examine how AI explanations and meta-cognitive self-assessment shape it. Through a between-subjects study with 110 participants completing a clinical entity extraction task with AI assistance and limited performance feedback, we observe that novice users exhibit systematic drift toward over-reliance in the presence of explanations, while higher self-reported task understanding is associated with more selective reliance behavior. These results extend reliance calibration research into human-AI collaboration contexts without real-time performance signals and present actionable guidelines on designing AI tools that must support appropriate reliance in these settings.