Junior indie game developers in distributed, part-time teams lack production frameworks suited to their specific context, as traditional methodologies are often inaccessible. This study introduces the CIGDI (Co-Intelligence Game Development Ideation) Framework, an alternative approach for integrating AI tools to address persistent challenges of technical debt, coordination, and burnout. The framework emerged from a three-month reflective practice and autoethnographic study of a three-person distributed team developing the 2D narrative game "The Worm's Memoirs". Based on analysis of development data (N=157 Jira tasks, N=333 GitHub commits, N=13+ Miro boards, N=8 reflection sessions), CIGDI is proposed as a seven-stage iterative process structured around human-in-the-loop decision points (Priority Criteria and Timeboxing). While AI support democratized knowledge access and reduced cognitive load, our analysis identified a significant challenge: "comprehension debt." We define this as a novel form of technical debt where AI helps teams build systems more sophisticated than their independent skill level can create or maintain. This paradox (possessing functional systems the team incompletely understands) creates fragility and AI dependency, distinct from traditional code quality debt. This work contributes a practical production framework for resource-constrained teams and identifies critical questions about whether AI assistance constitutes a learning ladder or a dependency trap for developer skill.

Group segregation or cohesion can emerge from micro-level communication, and AI-assisted messaging may shape this process. Here, we report a preregistered online experiment (N = 557 across 60 sessions) in which participants discussed controversial political topics over multiple rounds and could freely change groups. Some participants received real-time message suggestions from a large language model (LLM), either personalized to their stance ("individual assistance") or incorporating their group members' perspectives ("relational assistance"). We find that small variations in AI-mediated communication cascade into macro-level differences in group composition. Participants with individual assistance send more messages and show greater stance-based clustering, whereas those with relational assistance use more receptive language and form more heterogeneous ties. Hybrid expressive processes--jointly produced by humans and AI--can reshape collective organization. The patterns of structural division and cohesion depend on how AI incorporates users' interaction context. Understanding how micro-level communication patterns accumulate into macro-level group segregation or cohesion is a central question in social and behavioral science [1-3]. Conversations across differences are often asymmetric: people find it difficult to engage constructively with those who hold opposing views [4, 5], and stereotypes bias perceptions of outgroup members [6]. Online platforms can intensify these dynamics through lowered inhibitions [9], emotion-amplified diffusion [10], and algorithmic or behavioral clustering processes [11-13]. While the forces that produce social division are well theorized and empirically documented, far less is known about the micro-level conversational mechanisms that can instead generate cohesion in ideollogically diverse groups [14-16].

Human-AI collaboration outcomes depend strongly on human self-confidence calibration, which drives reliance or resistance toward AI's suggestions. This work presents two studies examining whether calibration of self-confidence before decision tasks, low versus high levels of Need for Cognition (NFC), and Actively Open-Minded Thinking (AOT), leads to differences in decision accuracy, self-confidence appropriateness during the tasks, and metacognitive perceptions (global and affective). The first study presents strategies to identify well-calibrated users, also comparing decision accuracy and the appropriateness of self-confidence across NFC and AOT levels. The second study investigates the effects of calibrated self-confidence in AI-assisted decision-making (no AI, two-stage AI, and personalized AI), also considering different NFC and AOT levels. Our results show the importance of human self-confidence calibration and psychological traits when designing AI-assisted decision systems. We further propose design recommendations to address the challenge of calibrating self-confidence and supporting tailored, user-centric AI that accounts for individual traits.

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems increasingly match or surpass human experts in biomedical signal interpretation. However, their effective integration into clinical practice requires more than high predictive accuracy. Clinicians must discern \textit{when} and \textit{why} to trust algorithmic recommendations. This work presents an application-grounded user study with eight professional sleep medicine practitioners, who score nocturnal arousal events in polysomnographic data under three conditions: (i) manual scoring, (ii) black-box (BB) AI assistance, and (iii) transparent white-box (WB) AI assistance. Assistance is provided either from the \textit{start} of scoring or as a post-hoc quality-control (\textit{QC}) review. We systematically evaluate how the type and timing of assistance influence event-level and clinically most relevant count-based performance, time requirements, and user experience. When evaluated against the clinical standard used to train the AI, both AI and human-AI teams significantly outperform unaided experts, with collaboration also reducing inter-rater variability. Notably, transparent AI assistance applied as a targeted QC step yields median event-level performance improvements of approximately 30\% over black-box assistance, and QC timing further enhances count-based outcomes. While WB and QC approaches increase the time required for scoring, start-time assistance is faster and preferred by most participants. Participants overwhelmingly favor transparency, with seven out of eight expressing willingness to adopt the system with minor or no modifications. In summary, strategically timed transparent AI assistance effectively balances accuracy and clinical efficiency, providing a promising pathway toward trustworthy AI integration and user acceptance in clinical workflows.

Structured reporting (SR) and artificial intelligence (AI) may transform how radiologists interact with imaging studies. This prospective study (July to December 2024) evaluated the impact of three reporting modes: free-text (FT), structured reporting (SR), and AI-assisted structured reporting (AI-SR), on image analysis behavior, diagnostic accuracy, efficiency, and user experience. Four novice and four non-novice readers (radiologists and medical students) each analyzed 35 bedside chest radiographs per session using a customized viewer and an eye-tracking system. Outcomes included diagnostic accuracy (compared with expert consensus using Cohen's $κ$), reporting time per radiograph, eye-tracking metrics, and questionnaire-based user experience. Statistical analysis used generalized linear mixed models with Bonferroni post-hoc tests with a significance level of ($P \le .01$). Diagnostic accuracy was similar in FT ($κ= 0.58$) and SR ($κ= 0.60$) but higher in AI-SR ($κ= 0.71$, $P < .001$). Reporting times decreased from $88 \pm 38$ s (FT) to $37 \pm 18$ s (SR) and $25 \pm 9$ s (AI-SR) ($P < .001$). Saccade counts for the radiograph field ($205 \pm 135$ (FT), $123 \pm 88$ (SR), $97 \pm 58$ (AI-SR)) and total fixation duration for the report field ($11 \pm 5$ s (FT), $5 \pm 3$ s (SR), $4 \pm 1$ s (AI-SR)) were lower with SR and AI-SR ($P < .001$ each). Novice readers shifted gaze towards the radiograph in SR, while non-novice readers maintained their focus on the radiograph. AI-SR was the preferred mode. In conclusion, SR improves efficiency by guiding visual attention toward the image, and AI-prefilled SR further enhances diagnostic accuracy and user satisfaction.

Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a leading cause of blindness worldwide, and AI systems can expand access to fundus photography screening. Current FDA-cleared systems primarily provide binary referral outputs, where this minimal output may limit clinical trust and utility. Yet, determining the most effective output format to enhance clinician-AI performance is an empirical challenge that is difficult to assess at scale. We evaluated multimodal large language models (MLLMs) for DR detection and their ability to simulate clinical AI assistance across different output types. Two models were tested on IDRiD and Messidor-2: GPT-4o, a general-purpose MLLM, and MedGemma, an open-source medical model. Experiments included: (1) baseline evaluation, (2) simulated AI assistance with synthetic predictions, and (3) actual AI-to-AI collaboration where GPT-4o incorporated MedGemma outputs. MedGemma outperformed GPT-4o at baseline, achieving higher sensitivity and AUROC, while GPT-4o showed near-perfect specificity but low sensitivity. Both models adjusted predictions based on simulated AI inputs, but GPT-4o's performance collapsed with incorrect ones, whereas MedGemma remained more stable. In actual collaboration, GPT-4o achieved strong results when guided by MedGemma's descriptive outputs, even without direct image access (AUROC up to 0.96). These findings suggest MLLMs may improve DR screening pipelines and serve as scalable simulators for studying clinical AI assistance across varying output configurations. Open, lightweight models such as MedGemma may be especially valuable in low-resource settings, while descriptive outputs could enhance explainability and clinician trust in clinical workflows.

-- Creating and improvising scenarios for content approaching is an enriching technique in education. However, it comes with a significant increase in the time spent on its planning, which intensifies when using complex technologies, such as social robots. Furthermore, addressing multicultural integration is commonly embedded in regular activities due to the already tight curriculum. Addressing these issues with a single solution, we implemented an intuitive interface that allows teachers to create scenario-based activities from their regular curriculum using LLMs and social robots. We co-designed different frameworks of activities with 4 teachers and deployed it in a study with 27 students for 1 week. Beyond validating the system's efficacy, our findings highlight the positive impact of integration policies perceived by the children and demonstrate the importance of scenario-based activities in students' enjoyment, observed to be significantly higher when applying storytelling. Additionally, several implications of using LLMs and social robots in long-term classroom activities are discussed. Technology is constantly challenging the way teachers and students interact in primary schools. On the one hand, students have access to interactive devices earlier in life than previous generations, and their exposure to such applications has changed their attention span capacity.

The integration of AI tools into programming education has become increasingly prevalent in recent years, transforming the way programming is taught and learned. This paper provides a review of the state - of - the - art AI tools available for teaching and learn ing programming, particularly in the context of introductory courses. It highlights the challenges on course design, learning objectives, course delivery and formative and summative assessment, as well as the misuse of such tools by the students. We discus s ways of re - designing an existing course, re - shaping assignments and pedagogy to address the current AI technologies challenges. This example can serve as a guideline for policies for institutions and teachers involved in teaching programming, aiming to m aximize the benefits of AI tools while addressing the associated challenges and concerns.

Background: Understanding social determinants of health (SDoH) factors contributing to suicide incidents is crucial for early intervention and prevention. However, data-driven approaches to this goal face challenges such as long-tailed factor distributions, analyzing pivotal stressors preceding suicide incidents, and limited model explainability. Methods: We present a multi-stage large language model framework to enhance SDoH factor extraction from unstructured text. Our approach was compared to other state-of-the-art language models (i.e., pre-trained BioBERT and GPT-3.5-turbo) and reasoning models (i.e., DeepSeek-R1). We also evaluated how the model's explanations help people annotate SDoH factors more quickly and accurately. The analysis included both automated comparisons and a pilot user study. Results: We show that our proposed framework demonstrated performance boosts in the overarching task of extracting SDoH factors and in the finer-grained tasks of retrieving relevant context. Additionally, we show that fine-tuning a smaller, task-specific model achieves comparable or better performance with reduced inference costs. The multi-stage design not only enhances extraction but also provides intermediate explanations, improving model explainability. Conclusions: Our approach improves both the accuracy and transparency of extracting suicide-related SDoH from unstructured texts. These advancements have the potential to support early identification of individuals at risk and inform more effective prevention strategies.

Despite widespread adoption, the impact of AI tools on software development in the wild remains understudied. We conduct a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to understand how AI tools at the February-June 2025 frontier affect the productivity of experienced open-source developers. 16 developers with moderate AI experience complete 246 tasks in mature projects on which they have an average of 5 years of prior experience. Each task is randomly assigned to allow or disallow usage of early 2025 AI tools. When AI tools are allowed, developers primarily use Cursor Pro, a popular code editor, and Claude 3.5/3.7 Sonnet. Before starting tasks, developers forecast that allowing AI will reduce completion time by 24%. After completing the study, developers estimate that allowing AI reduced completion time by 20%. Surprisingly, we find that allowing AI actually increases completion time by 19%--AI tooling slowed developers down. This slowdown also contradicts predictions from experts in economics (39% shorter) and ML (38% shorter). To understand this result, we collect and evaluate evidence for 20 properties of our setting that a priori could contribute to the observed slowdown effect--for example, the size and quality standards of projects, or prior developer experience with AI tooling. Although the influence of experimental artifacts cannot be entirely ruled out, the robustness of the slowdown effect across our analyses suggests it is unlikely to primarily be a function of our experimental design.