Sep 2026· Medical decision making· pp.
272989X261484927
· 1 citation· 28 references
Medicine
TL;DR
The findings suggest that detailed AI explanations do not necessarily improve AI-augmented medical decisions even though they can increase trust in AI recommendations and the importance of AI recommendation quality in clinical decision making is underscored.
Abstract
Background
Explainable AI has garnered significant attention in recent years, particularly in high-risk domains such as health care. Despite the enthusiasm, empirical evidence on the impact of AI explanations remains mixed. This study explores the effects of AI-generated recommendations and various types of AI explanations on clinical decision quality.
Methods
We conducted 3 experiments involving clinicians who made drug-dosing decisions using AI recommendations of differing quality and explanations. We evaluated 4 types of explanations: a global explanation about how the AI system worked and 3 case-specific local explanations that respectively included the What (what factors were considered for the case), What+Why (why the factors mattered), and What+Why+How (how the system considered them). We recruited clinicians with varying levels of domain expertise, including pharmacists, physicians, nurses, and midlevel providers.
Results
Our results suggest that compared with AI explanations, AI recommendation quality played a more important role in decision quality. Clinical roles, a proxy for domain knowledge, moderated the effects of AI recommendation quality on decision quality and AI influence. Compared with pharmacists and physicians with greater domain knowledge, midlevel providers and nurses were more susceptible to being influenced by low-quality AI recommendations. Contrary to theoretical predictions, local AI explanations increased trust in the AI system but did not improve decision quality over global explanations. Instead, trust in AI seemed largely unrelated to clinical decision quality.
Conclusion
This study underscores the importance of AI recommendation quality in clinical decision making and the need to personalize AI design and AI training to clinicians with different roles and domain knowledge. Our findings also suggest that detailed AI explanations do not necessarily improve AI-augmented medical decisions even though they can increase trust in AI recommendations.
Background Physicians’ confidence in clinical AI tools and perceptions of their effectiveness can influence the adoption of these tools in practice, which in turn, could affect the quality of patient care. However, the factors shaping these perceptions remain poorly understood. Methods We surveyed U.S. family medicine...
Bohye Kim, Katie Ryan, M. Kasun et al.· Research Square· 0 citations
The use of AI to support physicians appears more acceptable when used for analytical rather than decisional support, or when physicians’ decisional independence is visibly retained, suggesting that trust in AI-supported medical decisions depends not only on whether physicians use AI support but also on subjective perce...
Insa Schaffernak, Julia Cecil, Eesha Kokje et al.· Journal of Medical Internet...· 1 citation
This article proposes seven questions that clinicians can run through to evaluate any clinical AI tool in the time it takes to read an abstract, alongside a traffic-light schema for matching oversight to risk and a short list of demands clinicians should make of vendors and institutions.
Alaa Abdelqader, M. Alkhateeb, Abdullah Al-Marrawi et al.· Avicenna Journal of Medicine· 0 citations
It is concluded that explainable artificial intelligence improves trust, reliability, and accountability in healthcare systems and is a prerequisite for successful integration of intelligent technologies into clinical practice.
Riya Jacob K· International Journal of Tec...· 0 citations
A framework through XAI to incorporate various health data sources such as electronic health records, medical imaging, laboratory reports, and wearable sensor information, which can be integrated in the context of achieving higher predictive performance in disease prediction and treatment stratification, as well as dec...
M. Aparna, S. Lahane, Dr. Bharti A. Dixit· Journal of Intelligent Decis...· 0 citations
A multi-level, dynamic conceptual evaluation framework that integrates system design characteristics, human–AI interaction mechanisms, contextual moderators, and temporally dynamic feedback loops to provide a comprehensive analytical lens for assessing the impact of AI-CDSS on clinical decision quality and patient safe...
G. Karraz, Anas Shahin· BMC Medical Informatics and...· 0 citations
Related blog posts
MIT News · Artificial Intelligence· news.mit.eduOct 8, 2026
Exploring how generative AI could make machine vision more accessible to businesses. The post GenEye in a Box: Making Machine Vision Something You Can Just Ask For appeared first on GPT-Lab.
MIT News · Artificial Intelligence· news.mit.eduOct 8, 2026
Training AI agents with reinforcement learning can be challenging because their tools, context, and decision-making are managed by complex frameworks. Agent Lightning connects existing agents to RL training, making it easier to improve them without rebuilding them. The post Agent Lightning v1.0: A 3,500-Line Lightweight Agentic RL Framework for Training Agents with Real Harnesses appeared first on Microsoft Research.
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.