# Exploring the Effect of Explanation Content and Format on User Comprehension and Trust in Healthcare

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.17401 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.17401/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 14 of its 46 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 30 Aug 2024.

## Builds on (most cited first, 14 of 14)

- [A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.07874/) (2017)
- [Explanation in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Social Sciences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.07269/) (2017)
- [A Survey on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Towards Medical XAI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1907.07374/) (2019)
- [Explainable Machine Learning in Deployment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.06342/) (2019)
- [Formalizing Trust in Artificial Intelligence: Prerequisites, Causes and Goals of Human Trust in AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.07487/) (2020)
- [Benchmarking and Survey of Explanation Methods for Black Box Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.13076/) (2021)
- [What Do We Want From Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)? -- A Stakeholder Perspective on XAI and a Conceptual Model Guiding Interdisciplinary XAI Research](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.07817/) (2021)
- [Who Should I Trust: AI or Myself? Leveraging Human and AI Correctness Likelihood to Promote Appropriate Trust in AI-Assisted Decision-Making](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.05809/) (2023)
- ["Help Me Help the AI": Understanding How Explainability Can Support Human-AI Interaction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03735/) (2022)
- [The Who in XAI: How AI Background Shapes Perceptions of AI Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.13509/) (2021)
- [Even if Explanations: Prior Work, Desiderata & Benchmarks for Semi-Factual XAI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.11970/) (2023)
- [Assessing the communication gap between AI models and healthcare professionals: explainability, utility and trust in AI-driven clinical decision-making](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.05030/) (2022)
- [Counterfactual Explanations for Misclassified Images: How Human and Machine Explanations Differ](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.08733/) (2022)
- [On the Impact of Explanations on Understanding of Algorithmic Decision-Making](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.08264/) (2023)

## Abstract (arXiv)

AI-driven tools for healthcare are widely acknowledged as potentially beneficial to health practitioners and patients, e.g. the QCancer regression tool for cancer risk prediction. However, for these tools to be trusted, they need to be supplemented with explanations. We examine how explanations' content and format affect user comprehension and trust when explaining QCancer's predictions. Regarding content, we deploy the SHAP and Occlusion-1 explanation methods. Regarding format, we present SHAP explanations, conventionally, as charts (SC) and Occlusion-1 explanations as charts (OC) as well as text (OT), to which their simpler nature lends itself. We conduct experiments with two sets of stakeholders: the general public (representing patients) and medical students (representing healthcare practitioners). Our experiments showed higher subjective comprehension and trust for Occlusion-1 over SHAP explanations based on content. However, when controlling for format, only OT outperformed SC, suggesting this trend is driven by preferences for text. Other findings corroborated that explanation format, rather than content, is often the critical factor.