Saturday, July 18, 2026


AI disagreement may shake patient trust in doctors




Penn State





UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. — Patient trust in medical professionals might hinge on what artificial intelligence (AI) has to say, according to a team led by Penn State researchers.

Using an AI chatbot roleplaying as a human doctor, the team identified how people perceive medical professionals when they think a “human” doctor consults an AI system for a second opinion during mental health consultations. They found that when the AI system agreed with the proxy doctor’s recommendation, patients viewed the professional’s assessment as more credible. But when the AI disagreed with the doctor’s assessment, patient perceptions of medical uncertainty and doctor laziness increased.

The researchers reported their findings in the June/July issue of the International Journal of Human-Computer Studies.

“Historically, when a doctor told a patient that they’re welcome to get a second opinion, they meant ‘go to another doctor’,” said S. Shyam Sundar, Evan Pugh University Professor and the James P. Jimirro Professor of Media Effects at Penn State. “But now in the same session, physicians can use an AI assistant to give a second opinion. We wondered how that might affect patients’ impressions of doctors. We found that perceptions of doctor credibility and medical certainty increase or decrease based on whether the AI assistant agrees or disagrees with the doctor’s diagnosis.”

Recruiting a team of human doctors to give tens or hundreds of patients a consistent experience in terms of clinical practice, communication style and interaction patterns in a controlled experimental setting is impractical, according to the researchers. So, they developed an AI-powered chatbot that could personalize conversations with patients, and gave it instructions to roleplay as a doctor named Dr. Alex.

Then the researchers recruited 135 adults in the United States and offered them an online therapy session with Dr. Alex to identify and discuss daily life stressors. Dr. Alex provided a brief mental health therapy session using the cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) approach and concluded that CBT is a suitable approach for the patient. Dr. Alex also offered participants the option to get a second opinion from an AI assistant, CareBot. The assistant either agreed or disagreed with Dr. Alex’s recommendation.

After the session, participants answered questions about the doctor’s recommendation, their perceptions and trust in the doctor.

The research team found that agreement between Dr. Alex and the AI chatbot boosted patient confidence in the doctor’s recommendation. Disagreement had the opposite effect, increasing perceptions of medical uncertainty and doctor laziness. Anthropomorphism, or how human-like the AI-powered doctor seemed, also played a role in the observed outcomes. The positive effects of AI agreement and the negative effects of AI disagreement occur only when the doctor was perceived as more human-like.

The findings have important implications for services like telehealth and app-based and other online medical consultations, the researchers said.

“More than half of the participants in our study perceived the AI-simulated doctor as being human-like, demonstrating the capabilities of AI to replicate the professional behaviors of human doctors, at least from a conversational aspect,” said first author Cheng “Chris” Chen, assistant professor of emerging media and technology at Oregon State University who received her doctoral degree from Penn State. “This can bring challenges to doctors who provide online services where their true identity is not visible or clearly communicated. Patients may perceive AI as human or human as AI.”

The effect of AI disagreement on medical uncertainty was especially strong for individuals who believe that machines like AI are more accurate, objective and precise than humans, the researchers noted. These findings suggest that AI can have tremendous authority in planting seeds of doubt in patients’ minds, Sundar said.

The team also suggested strategies for communicating AI disagreement in ways that do not undermine patient trust in their physicians.

“A doctor can still communicate AI disagreement in implicit ways, like saying one of the tools they’re using has highlighted a few points that may be worth exploring a bit more closely, and offering to explore them together,” Chen said.

Explaining potential reasons for AI disagreement can help to reduce medical uncertainty and perceived laziness, Sundar added.

“Calling extra attention to the fact that there’s disagreement and showing that they’re on top of it can reduce the perception of laziness,” he said. “Then if the doctor can lend more nuance into why the medical uncertainty happened — like if the AI system is using data coming from a mostly white, Western sample, and the patient is non-Western, so the results might not apply to them — will communicate the doctor’s activeness.”

Other study co-authors include Yuan Sun, University of Florida, Gainesville; and Mengqi Liao, University of Georgia, who both received their doctoral degrees at Penn State.

 Rise of GLP-1s raises long-term affordability questions


Average total payments per user more than doubled for adults without diabetes from 2017 to 2022, study found




Northwestern University








  • GLP-1 use increased 643% among adults without diabetes between 2017 and 2022

  • Average total payments per user in that group increased 157%

  • Findings point to questions about the long-term affordability of GLP-1s and who ultimately pays for them

CHICAGO — As use of GLP-1s surged across the U.S., average total payments per user also climbed sharply, according to a new Northwestern University study that analyzed national trends in GLP-1 use and spending between 2017 and 2022. These total payments included out-of-pocket costs paid by patients as well as payments from insurers, employers and government programs.

The study authors say the findings raise questions about the long-term affordability of drugs that many patients may take for years or even decades. Those questions became even more relevant earlier this month when Medicare launched a temporary program that gives millions of eligible seniors potential access to GLP-1s for a flat $50 monthly copayment.

“Higher total costs of GLP-1 drugs might drive up taxes and increase insurance premium payments both for people taking GLP-1s and those not,” said study first author Dr. Michael Hammond, a recent graduate of the internal medicine residency program at Northwestern’s McGaw Medical Center.

The study will publish on Thursday (July 16) in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

The findings

Using data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), Northwestern scientists analyzed usage and spending trends for nearly 1,900 participants who reported using a GLP-1 drug between 2017 and 2022. The authors estimate that these participants were representative of more than 20 million U.S. adults.

The study period coincided with semaglutide's FDA approvals for Type 2 diabetes in 2017 (Ozempic) and weight management in 2021 (Wegovy). Tirzepatide (Zepbound, Mounjaro) was approved for weight loss after the study period and was not included in the analysis.

For the spending trends, the research team looked at total payments (from patients, insurance, employers, Medicare, Medicaid and other programs) and out-of-pocket payments made directly by patients and their families.

The scientists found that between 2017 and 2022:

  • Average total payments per patient increased 157% among adults without diabetes and 36% among those with diabetes
  • Despite rising total payments, average out-of-pocket payments per patient declined 26% among adults without diabetes and 39% among those with diabetes
  • GLP-1 use increased 643% among adults without diabetes and 230% among adults with diabetes
  • Semaglutide became the dominant GLP-1 drug by 2022, accounting for 54% of usage among adults with diabetes and 65% among adults without diabetes

The authors note that while this study only used data through 2022, Medicare and Medicaid spending on GLP-1s has continued to surge in recent years.

Who foots the bill?

As spending on GLP-1s continues to grow, the discussion about who foots the bill extends beyond those taking the drugs, the Northwestern scientists said.

“On the commercial side, employers and insurers facing higher drug spending tend to pass it through in the form of higher premiums, higher deductibles or tighter rules,” said study senior author Xiaoning Huang, assistant professor of medicine in the division of cardiology at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine.

“On the public side, it shows up as higher Medicare and Medicaid spending funded by taxpayers, and some state Medicaid programs have started dropping coverage under budget pressure,” Huang added. “So, the bill ultimately lands on premium payers, taxpayers and, in some cases, on patients who lose coverage or face new hurdles.”

Huang says more studies are needed to evaluate policies and strategies that can reduce overall and out-of-pocket payments for GLP-1s

Other Northwestern University authors include Lucia Petito and Dr. Sadiya Khan

The study is titled, “Trends in Usage and Payments for Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 Receptor Agonists in the United States, 2017 to 2022: A Nationally Representative Repeated Cross-Sectional Study.” It was funded by the National Institutes of Health (grant 1R01HL180694-­ 01).