Human-centered XAI: Developing design patterns for explanations of clinical decision support systems
Open accessAbstract
Much of the research on eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) has centered on providing transparency of machine learning models. More recently, the focus on human-centered approaches to XAI has increased. Yet, there is a lack of practical methods and examples on the integration of human factors into the development processes of AI-generated explanations that humans prove to uptake for better performance. This paper presents a case study of an application of a human-centered design approach for AI-generated explanations. The approach consists of three components: Domain analysis to define the concept & context of explanations, Requirements elicitation & assessment to derive the use cases & explanation requirements, and the consequential Multi-modal interaction design & evaluation to create a library of design patterns for explanations. In a case study, we adopt the DoReMi-approach to design explanations for a Clinical Decision Support System (CDSS) for child health. In the requirements elicitation & assessment, a user study with experienced paediatricians uncovered what explanations the CDSS should provide. In the interaction design & evaluation, a second user study tested the consequential interaction design patterns. This case study provided a first set of user requirements and design patterns for an explainable decision support system in medical diagnosis, showing how to involve expert end users in the development process and how to develop, more or less, generic solutions for general design problems in XAI.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Computational evaluation methods lack the capacity to assess human usability and interaction, which plays a vital role in gaining trust, acceptance, and eventual adoption of AI-enabled tools in clinical practice.
“Moreover, computational evaluation methods lack the capacity to assess human usability and interaction [21–23], which plays a vital role in gaining trust, acceptance, and eventual adoption of AI-enabled tools in clinical practice.”
From Evaluating Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) techniques in chest radiology imaging through a human-centered Lens (2024) · cites this paper as [21]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 87 · Cited by 210
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Hall, M., Harborne, D., Tomsett, R., Galetic, V., Quintana-Amate, S., Nottle, A., Preece, A., 2019. A systematic method to understand requirements for explainable ai (XAI) systems. Proceedings of the IJCAI Workshop on eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI 2019), Macau, China.
- Hoffman, R. R., Mueller, S. T., Klein, G., Litman, J., 2018. Metrics for explainable ai: challenges and prospects. arXiv preprint:1812.04608. · arXiv
- Holzinger, A., Carrington, A., Müller, H., 2020. Measuring the quality of explanations: the system causability scale (SCS). KI-Künstliche Intell. 6 (34), 193-198.
- Madumal, P., Miller, T., Sonenberg, L., Vetere, F., 2019. A grounded interaction protocol for explainable artificial intelligence. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.02409. · arXiv
- Samek, W., Wiegand, T., Müller, K.-R., 2017. Explainable artificial intelligence: understanding, visualizing and interpreting deep learning models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.08296. · arXiv
- Xie, Y., Gao, G., Chen, X., 2019. Outlining the design space of explainable intelligent systems for medical diagnosis. arXiv preprint: 1902.06019. · arXiv
- Authors
- Schoonderwoerd, T. A. J., Jorritsma, W., Neerincx, M. A., & van den Bosch, K.
- Affiliations
- Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Neerincx, Mark A.
- Venue
- International Journal of Human-Computer Studies
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2021-10
- Volume
- 154
- Pages
- 102684
- ISSN
- 1071-5819 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3175430320
- Cited by
- 210
- References
- 87
- Citations by year
- 2026: 47 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 61 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 2
- FWCI
- 11.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- International Journal of Human-Computer Studies (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- TNO Repository (submittedVersion)
- Research Repository (Delft University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- Nederlandse Organisatie voor Toegepast Natuurwetenschappelijk Onderzoek
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Keywords
- explainable AI, clinical decision support systems, human-centered design, design patterns, AI-generated explanations, requirements analysis, pediatric diagnosis, user requirements, diagnosis
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