Cited by 27Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety

Trust and Transparency in Machine Learning-Based Clinical Decision Support

Gretton, Cosima·2018·Human–Computer Interaction Series

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/978-3-319-90403-0_14

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gretton, C.
Affiliations
University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Gretton, Cosima
Venue
Human–Computer Interaction Series
Published
2018
Pages
279-292
ISSN
  • 1571-5035 (ISSN-L)
  • 2524-4477
OpenAlex
W2805399480
Cited by
27
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1
FWCI
1.50
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Human-computer interaction series (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
Keywords
clinical decision support systems, machine learning, trust in automation, transparency, automation bias, automation complacency, medical errors, clinician trust, explainability

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review