Scholarlink

<p>Clinical decision-making substantially impacts patients’ lives and their quality of life. However, the black-box nature of AI-powered clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) complicates the interpretation of how decisions are derived. Explainable AI (XAI) improves acceptance and trust with explanations, but the effectiveness of different methods remains uncertain. We compared the acceptance, trust, satisfaction and usability of various explanatory methods among clinicians. We also explored the factors associated with acceptance levels for each item using trust, satisfaction and usability score questionnaires. Surgeons and physicians (<i>N</i> = 63), who had prescribed blood products before surgery, made decisions before and after receiving one of three CDSS explanation methods, each comprising six vignettes, in a counterbalanced design. We found empirical evidence, which indicates that providing a clinical explanation enhances clinicians’ acceptance than presenting ‘results only’ or ‘results with SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP)’. Additionally, trust, satisfaction and usability were correlated with acceptance. This study suggests best practices for the strategic application of the XAI–CDSS in the medical field.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Comparison of SHAP and clinician friendly explanations reveals effects on clinical decision behaviour

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年9月26日

查看全文
  • Sujeong Hur,
  • Yura Lee,
  • Joongheum Park,
  • Yeong Jeong Jeon,
  • Jong Ho Cho,
  • Duck Cho,
  • Dobin Lim,
  • Wonil Hwang,
  • Won Chul Cha,
  • Junsang Yoo

摘要

Clinical decision-making substantially impacts patients’ lives and their quality of life. However, the black-box nature of AI-powered clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) complicates the interpretation of how decisions are derived. Explainable AI (XAI) improves acceptance and trust with explanations, but the effectiveness of different methods remains uncertain. We compared the acceptance, trust, satisfaction and usability of various explanatory methods among clinicians. We also explored the factors associated with acceptance levels for each item using trust, satisfaction and usability score questionnaires. Surgeons and physicians (N = 63), who had prescribed blood products before surgery, made decisions before and after receiving one of three CDSS explanation methods, each comprising six vignettes, in a counterbalanced design. We found empirical evidence, which indicates that providing a clinical explanation enhances clinicians’ acceptance than presenting ‘results only’ or ‘results with SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP)’. Additionally, trust, satisfaction and usability were correlated with acceptance. This study suggests best practices for the strategic application of the XAI–CDSS in the medical field.