Atomic Fact-Checking Increases Clinician Trust in Large Language Model Recommendations for Oncology Decision Support: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Question: Does atomic fact-checking, which decomposes AI treatment recommendations into individually verifiable claims linked to source guideline documents, increase clinician trust compared to traditional explainability approaches? Findings: In this randomized trial of 356 clinicians generating 7,476 trust ratings, atomic fact-checking produced a large effect on trust (Cohen's d = 0.94), increasing the proportion of clinicians expressing trust from 26.9% to 66.5%. Traditional transparency mechanisms showed a dose-response gradient of improvement over baseline (d = 0.25 to 0.50). Meaning: Decomposing AI recommendations into individually verifiable claims linked to source guidelines produces substantially higher clinician trust than traditional explainability approaches in high-stakes clinical decisions.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 0 of its 2 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 May 2026.
Builds on
0 of 2 references.
No references here yet.
Built on by
Not cited yet.