arXiv subjects

Emely Rosbach

Publications and source records attributed to Emely Rosbach.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Stuck on Suggestions: Automation Bias, the Anchoring Effect, and the Factors That Shape Them in Computational Pathology

Artificial intelligence (AI)-driven decision support systems can improve diagnostic accuracy and efficiency in computational pathology. However, collaboration between human experts and AI may introduce cognitive biases such as automation and anchoring bias, where users adopt system predictions blindly or are disproportionately influenced by AI advice, even when inaccurate. These effects may be amplified under time pressure, common in routine pathology, or shaped by individual user characteristics. We conducted an online experiment in which pathology experts (n = 28) estimated tumor cell percentages: once independently and once with AI support. A subset of estimations in each condition was performed under time strain. Overall, AI assistance improved diagnostic performance but introduced a 7% automation bias rate, defined as accepted negative consultations where previously correct independent judgments were overturned by incorrect AI advice. While time pressure did not increase the frequency of automation bias, it appeared to intensify its severity, reflected in stronger performance declines associated with increased AI reliance under cognitive load. A linear mixed-effects model (LMM) simulating weighted averaging showed a statistically significant positive coefficient for AI advice, indicating moderate anchoring on system output. This effect increased under time pressure, suggesting anchoring bias becomes more pronounced when cognitive resources are limited. A second LMM assessing automation reliance, a proxy for automation and anchoring bias, showed that professional experience and self-efficacy were associated with lower dependence on AI, whereas higher confidence during AI-assisted decisions was tied to increased AI reliance. These findings highlight the dual nature of AI integration in clinical workflows: improving performance while introducing risks of bias-driven diagnostic errors.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Benchmarking Foundation Models for Mitotic Figure Classification

The performance of deep learning models is known to scale with data quantity and diversity. In pathology, as in many other medical imaging domains, the availability of labeled images for a specific task is often limited. Self-supervised learning techniques have enabled the use of vast amounts of unlabeled data to train large-scale neural networks, i.e., foundation models, that can address the limited data problem by providing semantically rich feature vectors that can generalize well to new tasks with minimal training effort increasing model performance and robustness. In this work, we investigate the use of foundation models for mitotic figure classification. The mitotic count, which can be derived from this classification task, is an independent prognostic marker for specific tumors and part of certain tumor grading systems. In particular, we investigate the data scaling laws on multiple current foundation models and evaluate their robustness to unseen tumor domains. Next to the commonly used linear probing paradigm, we also adapt the models using low-rank adaptation (LoRA) of their attention mechanisms. We compare all models against end-to-end-trained baselines, both CNNs and Vision Transformers. Our results demonstrate that LoRA-adapted foundation models provide superior performance to those adapted with standard linear probing, reaching performance levels close to 100% data availability with only 10% of training data. Furthermore, LoRA-adaptation of the most recent foundation models almost closes the out-of-domain performance gap when evaluated on unseen tumor domains. However, full fine-tuning of traditional architectures still yields competitive performance.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2024

Is Self-Supervision Enough? Benchmarking Foundation Models Against End-to-End Training for Mitotic Figure Classification

Foundation models (FMs), i.e., models trained on a vast amount of typically unlabeled data, have become popular and available recently for the domain of histopathology. The key idea is to extract semantically rich vectors from any input patch, allowing for the use of simple subsequent classification networks potentially reducing the required amounts of labeled data, and increasing domain robustness. In this work, we investigate to which degree this also holds for mitotic figure classification. Utilizing two popular public mitotic figure datasets, we compared linear probing of five publicly available FMs against models trained on ImageNet and a simple ResNet50 end-to-end-trained baseline. We found that the end-to-end-trained baseline outperformed all FM-based classifiers, regardless of the amount of data provided. Additionally, we did not observe the FM-based classifiers to be more robust against domain shifts, rendering both of the above assumptions incorrect.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2024

Automation Bias in AI-Assisted Medical Decision-Making under Time Pressure in Computational Pathology

Artificial intelligence (AI)-based clinical decision support systems (CDSS) promise to enhance diagnostic accuracy and efficiency in computational pathology. However, human-AI collaboration might introduce automation bias, where users uncritically follow automated cues. This bias may worsen when time pressure strains practitioners' cognitive resources. We quantified automation bias by measuring the adoption of negative system consultations and examined the role of time pressure in a web-based experiment, where trained pathology experts (n=28) estimated tumor cell percentages. Our results indicate that while AI integration led to a statistically significant increase in overall performance, it also resulted in a 7% automation bias rate, where initially correct evaluations were overturned by erroneous AI advice. Conversely, time pressure did not exacerbate automation bias occurrence, but appeared to increase its severity, evidenced by heightened reliance on the system's negative consultations and subsequent performance decline. These findings highlight potential risks of AI use in healthcare.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

When Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right" -- Examining Confirmation Bias and the Role of Time Pressure During Human-AI Collaboration in Computational Pathology

Artificial intelligence (AI)-based decision support systems hold promise for enhancing diagnostic accuracy and efficiency in computational pathology. However, human-AI collaboration can introduce and amplify cognitive biases, such as confirmation bias caused by false confirmation when erroneous human opinions are reinforced by inaccurate AI output. This bias may worsen when time pressure, ubiquitously present in routine pathology, strains practitioners' cognitive resources. We quantified confirmation bias triggered by AI-induced false confirmation and examined the role of time constraints in a web-based experiment, where trained pathology experts (n=28) estimated tumor cell percentages. Our results suggest that AI integration may fuel confirmation bias, evidenced by a statistically significant positive linear-mixed-effects model coefficient linking AI recommendations mirroring flawed human judgment and alignment with system advice. Conversely, time pressure appeared to weaken this relationship. These findings highlight potential risks of AI use in healthcare and aim to support the safe integration of clinical decision support systems.

cs.HC↗