aceModerate evidence
Published recordScienceThe Trace
More
When combinations of humans and AI are useful: A systematic review and meta-analysis
- Truvace record
- TRV-2026-2796raw data (JSON)
- Version
- v1Published
- First published
- Evidence type
- Systematic review or meta-analysis
- Sources
- 1 sourcePeer-reviewed
- sha256
- e1ce8119dec4…check it
Inspired by the increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) to augment humans, researchers have studied human-AI systems involving different tasks, systems and populations. Despite such a large body of work, we lack a broad conceptual understanding of when combinations of humans and AI are better than either alone. Here we addressed this question by conducting a preregistered systematic review and meta-analysis of 106 experimental studies reporting 370 effect sizes. We searched an interdisciplinary set of dat…
56Gain side
How the two sides scoreClose call
58Problem side
The gain
A meta-analysis of 106 experiments (370 effect sizes) found human-AI teams outperformed humans working alone (Hedges' g = 0.64), and content-creation tasks showed gains over the best solo performer (g = 0.19, not statistically significant).
The problem
A meta-analysis of 106 experiments (370 effect sizes) found human-AI combinations did worse than the better of humans or AI alone (g = -0.23), with decision tasks losing ground (g = -0.27) and AI-outperforming-human tasks worse still (g = -0.54).
A fixed formula sets both scores from the evidence and its sources. Reader votes don’t move them.
What the scores mean
G is the gain side, out of 100. It goes up when the gain is specific, when it measurably helped people and when the sources behind it are strong.
P is the problem side, out of 100. It goes up when the problem is specific, when it measurably hurt people and when the sources behind it are strong.
What this doesn’t fix
The results apply only to laboratory-style experiments that reported humans alone, AI alone and the team, which may not reflect real-world deployments; heterogeneity was very high, and tests suggested possible publication bias for the augmentation outcome.
Sources
1 on file- Nature Human Behaviourdoi:10.1038/s41562-024-02024-1
What the review found when it combined the studies
These are the review’s own pooled results, copied from its abstract. Truvace did not recalculate them.
Task performance of human-AI combinations compared with the best of humans or AI alone
Hedges' g -0.23 (95% CI -0.39 to -0.07)
106 studies · search to 30 June 2023
The review’s own words
First, we found that, on average, human-AI combinations performed significantly worse than the best of humans or AI alone (Hedges' g = -0.23; 95% confidence interval, -0.39 to -0.07).
Code checks every number above against the review’s text before it is shown. The short labels are an AI model’s reading of that text, so the review’s own sentence sits under each one. A pooled figure is only as strong as the studies behind it. How Truvace uses pooled results
Cite this record
v1Truvace Impact Record TRV-2026-2796, v1: “When combinations of humans and AI are useful: A systematic review and meta-analysis.” Truvace, 2026-11-12. /record/TRV-2026-2796 (accessed on the day you copy it). sha256 e1ce8119dec4988a…
Change history
1 versionEvery change made to this record since it was first published, and why. Nothing has changed since it went up.
Certified into the record
Check this record hasn’t been altered
How to check it yourself, without trusting this page
Download any version from /api/record/TRV-2026-2796 and hash its canonical field yourself, for example with shasum -a 256. You should get its content_hash. Each version’s text also ends with prev:and the hash of the version before it (version 1 points to 64 zeros). If anyone had changed a single character of any version after it was saved, those hashes wouldn’t line up.