This study evaluates how well anonymized artificial-intelligence (AI) tools perform on standardized pediatric case vignettes and whether showing AI suggestions can improve clinicians' answers. About 30 board-certified/eligible pediatric specialists at a single hospital complete a one-time session. Participants are randomized to two groups. Group A (n≈15): physicians answer each vignette once. Group B (n≈15): physicians answer and rate confidence (1-10), then review anonymized suggestions from five different AI tools (tool names not shown) and may keep or change their answer; changes and confidence are recorded.

Primary focus: measure AI performance (diagnostic accuracy, medication-dosing accuracy, interpretation accuracy) overall and by difficulty tier, and record AI response time. Secondary focus: quantify how AI suggestions affect human performance (change in accuracy, direction of change, confidence shift, and time). No patients or biospecimens are involved; risks are minimal (time and possible discomfort with performance review). Findings may inform safe, evidence-based ways to use AI alongside clinicians in pediatrics.

Inclusion Criteria:

• Board-certified or board-eligible pediatric specialist (general pediatrics) (in the first 10 years of expertise)
• Actively practicing at the participating institution/network at the time of enrollment.
• Able and willing to complete all vignette items individually in a single session and to follow study instructions for the assigned cohort (direct answers or confidence rating + viewing anonymized AI suggestions).
• Fluent in Turkish and able to use a computer interface.
• Provides written informed consent.

Exclusion Criteria:

• Pediatric subspecialist practice as primary role (e.g., cardiology, infectious diseases, neurology, neonatology, etc.), to maintain a homogeneous general pediatrics cohort.
• Prior access to or participation in creating the study vignettes, answer keys, or scoring rubrics; direct involvement with the study team.
• Inability to complete the session without external help or use of non-protocol resources (internet/AI tools) during answering (outside of anonymized AI suggestions shown by the system in Group 2).
• Failure to complete ≥90% of items or major protocol deviation (e.g., discussion with others during the task).
• Any condition judged by investigators to interfere with valid participation (e.g., severe time constraints, inability to provide consent).

Board-certified/eligible general pediatrics specialists recruited from SBÜ Sultangazi Haseki Training and Research Hospital network.

IPD Description:

No IPD will be shared. The dataset comprises detailed, item-level responses from a small, single-center cohort of pediatric specialists. Despite de-identification, the risk of re-identification is non-trivial given granular performance metrics and professional identifiers. The informed consent did not include permission to share raw individual responses outside the study team.

Plan to Share Supporting Materials: Yes Supporting Documents: Study Protocol, Statistical Analysis Plan, scoring rubrics, redacted vignette templates, and analysis code.

Time Frame: Available within 6 months after the primary manuscript is published and for at least 36 months thereafter.

Access Criteria and URL: Materials will be provided upon reasonable request to the Principal Investigator (email: drberkerokay@gmail.com). A data use agreement will be required; use is limited to non-commercial research and aggregate reporting.