Home · C18

C18 weakened

Professionals who routinely work with AI assistance may perform worse at the same task when the AI is taken away than they did before they started using it; this is not established: one observational study found a drop (Budzyń et al. 2025), while a prospective study in the same endoscopists found none (Pedersen et al. 2026).

Status: weakened
Last change: 2026-10-16
Serves: Q2
Ages: vuxen-livslangt
Area: AI and thinking
Bounds: Consistency bound added 2026-10-16 (week run): Pedersen et al. 2026 (Endoscopy; 13 endoscopists, 5,013 colonoscopies, before/during/after computer-aided detection) found no significant change in unaided polyp detection after the AI period. Unaided performance of trained professionals before versus after a period of routine AI assistance on the same task; not learners using AI during practice (C2), not people's beliefs about their own thinking (candidate K45). Evidence on file: Budzyń et al. 2025 (Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology; four Polish centres; adenoma detection in non-AI colonoscopy 28.4% before vs 22.4% after AI introduction, −6.0 points, 95% CI −10.5 to −1.6; observational); Parasuraman & Manzey 2010 (Human Factors; review of automation complacency and bias).
What would kill this: A well-controlled study finds that professionals' unaided performance after months of routine AI assistance is the same as or better than before. Promoted from K43 on 2026-10-16 in the broadening Jonatan approved 2026-10-16 (one new claim per uncovered area.
Tutor consequence: none yet

Attack record

1 attack: 1 narrowed

2026-10-16 narrowed

Attack: In a prospective three-phase study, endoscopists' unaided polyp detection after a period of routine computer-aided detection was no lower than before they started using it, which meets C18's kill-condition for this setting.
Target: kill-condition
Source: Pedersen et al. 2026 | Endoscopy, DOI 10.1055/a-2858-7084
Steelmans to: C18 dies if professionals' unaided performance after months of routine AI assistance is the same as or better than before; this is the first prospective before/during/after test in the same endoscopists.
Why: Week run 2026-10-16, cycle 6 Europe/Stockholm. Full text read (Thieme open access, PMC13552228; stored privately). Three Norwegian clinics, 13 endoscopists (7 inexperienced, 6 experienced), 5,013 colonoscopies, fixed phase order. Inexperienced: PDR-5 31.9% before, 39.5% with CADe (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.11–1.84), 36.3% after removal (OR vs before 1.03, 95% CI 0.79–1.34); experienced: no significant change; no significant before-vs-after change overall or in either group. Kill withheld: not randomised, 13 endoscopists, a different endpoint (polyps ≥5 mm vs adenoma detection in Budzyń et al. 2025), and some inexperienced endoscopists did few phase-3 procedures; Budzyń et al. still show a drop. Narrowed: the drop is shown in one observational study and not found in one prospective study. Not a preprint.
Rewrite: claim-field+brief

Linked sources

5 linked sources (2 supports, 2 limits, 1 challenges)

Supports (2)

Source	Basis
AI-036 · Endoscopist deskilling risk after exposure to artificial intelligence in colonoscopy: a multicentre, observational study (2025)	Polish centres: adenoma detection in non-AI colonoscopy fell from 28.4% to 22.4% after AI polyp detection was introduced.
AI-037 · Complacency and Bias in Human Use of Automation: An Attentional Integration (2010)	Review: automation complacency and bias occur in experts and are not cured by training alone.

Limits (2)

Source	Basis
AI-044 · The Retention of Manual Flying Skills in the Automated Cockpit (2014)	16 airline pilots in a 747 simulator: hand-flying and instrument scanning largely intact after years of automation, but the cognitive navigation tasks the automation normally does broke down (1 of 16 error-free), tied to mind-wandering while monitoring. Cross-sectional, no before/after baseline. Full text read.
AI-045 · The relationship between manual handling performance and recent flying experience in air transport pilots (2010)	Airline pilots in a simulator: very recent hand-flying experience was significantly related to manual control strategy. Flight automation, not AI; correlational, no before/after baseline. Abstract only. Context for C18 by analogy, not a test.

Challenges (1)

Source	Basis
AI-043 · Learning and deskilling effects of artificial intelligence in colonoscopy among endoscopists with different levels of experience: a pragmatic, prospective trial (2026)	No drop in unaided polyp detection after a period of routine CADe use (13 endoscopists, 5,013 colonoscopies).

Review state: first-pass draft, pending human review.