Cited by 160Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Ethics and Social Impacts of AI

What we talk about when we talk about trust: Theory of trust for AI in healthcare

Open access
Gille, Felix, Jobin, Anna, Ienca, Marcello·2020·Intelligence-Based Medicine

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) is at the forefront of innovation in medicine. Researchers and AI developers have often claimed that "trust" is a critical determinant of the successful adoption of AI in medicine. Despite the pivotal role of trust and the emergence of an array of expert-informed guidelines on how to design and implement "trustworthy AI" in medicine, we found little common understanding across these guidelines on what constitutes user trust in AI and what the requirements are for its realization. In this article, we call for a conceptual framework of trust in health-related AI which is based not just on expert opinion, but first and foremost on sound empirical research and conceptual rigor. Only with a well-grounded and comprehensive understanding of the trust construct, we will be able to inform AI design and acceptance in medicine in a meaningful way.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ibmed.2020.100001

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Hesitance to adopt AI technologies could directly conflict with the principle of common good orientation, as it hinders the widespread and equitable implementation of AI that could benefit the entire community.

    “This hesitance could directly conflict with the principle of common good orientation, as it hinders the widespread and equitable implementation of AI that could benefit the entire community [25].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. LaRosa E, Danks D. Impacts on trust of healthcare AI roles for healthcare AI. In: AAAI/ACM conference on artificial intelligence. Ethics, and Society; 2018.
  2. Wachter S, Mittelstadt B, Russell C. Counterfactual explanations without opening the black box: automated decisions and the GDPR [cited 2020 Jun 2]; Available from, https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.00399; 2017 Nov 1. · arXiv
  3. Vollmer S, Mateen BA, Bohner G, Kir aly FJ, Ghani R, Jonsson P, et al. Machine learning and AI research for patient benefit: 20 critical questions on transparency, replicability, ethics and effectiveness [cited 2020 May 26]; Available from, htt p://arxiv.org/abs/1812.10404; 2018 Dec 21.
  4. Polonski V. AI trust and AI fears: a media debate that could divide society. Oxford Internet Institute-University of Oxford; 2018.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gille, F., Jobin, A., & Ienca, M.
Affiliations
ETH Zurich (CH)
Corresponding author
Gille, Felix
Venue
Intelligence-Based Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-11
Volume
1-2
Pages
100001
ISSN
2666-5212 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3043673199
Cited by
159
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 49 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 12
FWCI
4.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Intelligence-Based Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Repository for Publications and Research Data (ETH Zurich) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • ETH Zürich Research Collection (cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
trust in AI, trustworthy AI, AI adoption in medicine, user trust, AI acceptance, artificial intelligence in healthcare

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