Meta-analysis beyond education found human-AI integration performed worse than the better performer alone in 58% of studies¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · reviewr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i? A meta-analysis of over a hundred experimental studies beyond educational fields found that in 58% of reviewed studies, human-AI integration performance was lower than the better performer alone. → Mutlu Cukurova 2025
Evidence¶
Mutlu Cukurova 2025¶
Mutlu Cukurova, Wannapon Suraworachet, Qi Zhou, and Sahan Bulathwela. (2025). Towards Synergistic Teacher-AI Interactions with Generative Artificial Intelligence. https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.19580 doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.19580
q3 · i? · review · r2
The chapter cites Vaccaro et al.'s meta-analysis of over a hundred experimental studies beyond educational fields as synergistic performance evidence, showing synergic interactions are not naturally achieved. No effect size is printed.
"Results strikingly reveal that in 58% of the reviewed studies, the performance obtained from human-AI integration was lower than the better performer alone (either human or AI)."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Synergy is more likely in simpler content generation tasks and when humans exceed AI performance
- Purpose-built chatbot effects on educational performance are mixed, with some studies showing no benefits or worse outcomes than comparison conditions — related
- AI-induced gains are not purely delegation: treated participants do not perform worse once AI is removed, and lower-education participants retain part of their gain, though a 0.200 SD gap re-emerges — reports the opposite
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
human-ai-integration-underperforms-better-alone-58-percent |
title |
Meta-analysis beyond education found human-AI integration performed worse than the better performer alone in 58% of studies |
description |
Meta-analysis beyond education found human-AI integration performed worse than the better performer alone in 58% of studies |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2025 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-11 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — mutlu-cukurova-2025 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.