mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Assessing the communication gap between AI models and healthcare professionals: explainability, utility and trust in AI-driven clinical decision-making

arXiv 2204.05030 ↗First posted 11 Apr 2022cs.AI cs.HC cs.LGcited by 14

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

This paper contributes with a pragmatic evaluation framework for explainable Machine Learning (ML) models for clinical decision support. The study revealed a more nuanced role for ML explanation models, when these are pragmatically embedded in the clinical context. Despite the general positive attitude of healthcare professionals (HCPs) towards explanations as a safety and trust mechanism, for a significant set of participants there were negative effects associated with confirmation bias, accentuating model over-reliance and increased effort to interact with the model. Also, contradicting one of its main intended functions, standard explanatory models showed limited ability to support a critical understanding of the limitations of the model. However, we found new significant positive effects which repositions the role of explanations within a clinical context: these include reduction of automation bias, addressing ambiguous clinical cases (cases where HCPs were not certain about their decision) and support of less experienced HCPs in the acquisition of new domain knowledge.

Key facts. Cited by 14 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 81 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 Apr 2022.

Builds on

24 of 81 references.

References · 24

  1. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
  2. 2018Sanity Checks for Saliency Mapscited by 1,149
  3. 2016The Mythos of Model Interpretabilitycited by 716
  4. 2018Explaining Explanations: An Overview of Interpretability of Machine Learningcited by 508
  5. 2019A Survey on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Towards Medical XAIcited by 403
  6. 2019Interpretable machine learning: definitions, methods, and applicationscited by 303
  7. 2020Effect of Confidence and Explanation on Accuracy and Trust Calibration in AI-Assisted Decision Makingcited by 281
  8. 2018Explanations based on the Missing: Towards Contrastive Explanations with Pertinent Negativescited by 261
  9. 2018Manipulating and Measuring Model Interpretabilitycited by 256
  10. 2019Interpretable Counterfactual Explanations Guided by Prototypescited by 223
  11. 2016Visualizing the Effects of Predictor Variables in Black Box Supervised Learning Modelscited by 212
  12. 2018To Trust Or Not To Trust A Classifiercited by 205
12 more
  1. 2020Problems with Shapley-value-based explanations as feature importance measurescited by 198
  2. 2021To Trust or to Think: Cognitive Forcing Functions Can Reduce Overreliance on AI in AI-assisted Decision-makingcited by 118
  3. 2019"How do I fool you?": Manipulating User Trust via Misleading Black Box Explanationscited by 111
  4. 2019Towards Explainable Artificial Intelligencecited by 106
  5. 2019Unremarkable AI: Fitting Intelligent Decision Support into Critical, Clinical Decision-Making Processescited by 53
  6. 2020Does Explainable Artificial Intelligence Improve Human Decision-Making?cited by 49
  7. 2020A Survey on Explainability in Machine Reading Comprehensioncited by 33
  8. 2016Making Tree Ensembles Interpretable: A Bayesian Model Selection Approachcited by 27
  9. 2019A Human-Grounded Evaluation of SHAP for Alert Processingcited by 23
  10. 2017Learning Functional Causal Models with Generative Neural Networkscited by 14
  11. 2020When Does Uncertainty Matter?: Understanding the Impact of Predictive Uncertainty in ML Assisted Decision Makingcited by 12
  12. 2018ClinicalVis: Supporting Clinical Task-Focused Design Evaluationcited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2022: 1; 2023: 1; 2024: 6; 2025: 4; 2026: 2.

14 papers.

Sort: