Cited by 45Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies

Clinician preimplementation perspectives of a decision-support tool for the prediction of cardiac arrhythmia based on machine learning: near-live feasibility and qualitative study

Open access
Matthiesen, Stina, Diederichsen, Søren Zöga, Hansen, Mikkel Klitzing Hartmann, Villumsen, Christina, Lassen, Mats Christian Højbjerg, Jacobsen, Peter Karl, Risum, Niels, Winkel, Bo Gregers +3 more·2021·JMIR Human Factors

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI), such as machine learning (ML), shows great promise for improving clinical decision-making in cardiac diseases by outperforming statistical-based models. However, few AI-based tools have been implemented in cardiology clinics because of the sociotechnical challenges during transitioning from algorithm development to real-world implementation. Objective: This study explored how an ML-based tool for predicting ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation (VT/VF) could support clinical decision-making in the remote monitoring of patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). Methods: Seven experienced electrophysiologists participated in a near-live feasibility and qualitative study, which included walkthroughs of 5 blinded retrospective patient cases, use of the prediction tool, and questionnaires and interview questions. All sessions were video recorded, and sessions evaluating the prediction tool were transcribed verbatim. Data were analyzed through an inductive qualitative approach based on grounded theory. Results: The prediction tool was found to have potential for supporting decision-making in ICD remote monitoring by providing reassurance, increasing confidence, acting as a second opinion, reducing information search time, and enabling delegation of decisions to nurses and technicians. However, the prediction tool did not lead to changes in clinical action and was found less useful in cases where the quality of data was poor or when VT/VF predictions were found to be irrelevant for evaluating the patient. Conclusions: When transitioning from AI development to testing its feasibility for clinical implementation, we need to consider the following: expectations must be aligned with the intended use of AI; trust in the prediction tool is likely to emerge from real-world use; and AI accuracy is relational and dependent on available information and local workflows. Addressing the sociotechnical gap between the development and implementation of clinical decision-support tools based on ML in cardiac care is essential for succeeding with adoption. It is suggested to include clinical end-users, clinical contexts, and workflows throughout the overall iterative approach to design, development, and implementation.

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 · 10.2196/26964

Cites

15 of 15 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?

  • Perceptions of the XAI model's data quality impacted participants' trust and use of tools, and trust in outputs was reduced when XAI systems used hospital data that participants knew was unreliable.

    “Similarly, perceptions of the XAI model’s data quality impacted participants trust and use of tools and trust in outputs were reduced when XAI system’s used hospital data that participants knew was unreliable [23,25,26,29,32,33,36].”

    From Explainable AI in hospital clinical decision support systems: A scoping review of healthcare professionals’ perspectives (2026) · cites this paper as [33]

    The Discussion section ‘Trust Emerges From Real-World Use’ says clinicians’ trust and adoption of the prediction tool depended on experience with it and that visualizing predictive parameters helped raise confidence. ‘Accuracy is Dependent on Workflow and Context’ also says available information shaped how predictions were evaluated and used. Neither section reports reduced trust because the tool used hospital data participants knew was unreliable; searches for unreliable hospital data and data quality did not find that account. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Simple, interpretable visualizations, such as bar charts and line graphs, were preferred for understanding predictions at a glance.

    “Simple, interpretable visualizations, such as bar charts and line graphs, were preferred for understanding predictions at a glance.”

    From Explainable AI in hospital clinical decision support systems: A scoping review of healthcare professionals’ perspectives (2026) · cites this paper as [33]

    The Results section (‘Feasibility of the Prediction Tool in Clinical Practice’; page unavailable) says electrophysiologists found visualization of important predictive parameters useful and, in some cases, more confidence-inspiring than a probability score alone. It does not report a preference for bar charts or line graphs, or say predictions were understood at a glance. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Decimals, negative values, and outputs that did not sum to 100% were viewed as confusing and potentially misleading.

    “while decimals, negative values, and outputs that did not sum to 100% were viewed as confusing and potentially misleading.”

    From Explainable AI in hospital clinical decision support systems: A scoping review of healthcare professionals’ perspectives (2026) · cites this paper as [33]

    The Results section (“In Which Cases Does the Prediction Tool Support Clinical Decision-Making?”; page not provided) says some electrophysiologists found that percentage scores with decimals created uncertainty. Textbox 1, Quote 7 adds that a decimal could imply unwarranted accuracy. The passages do not report clinicians finding negative values or outputs that failed to sum to 100% confusing or misleading. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Health professionals preferred risk predictions expressed as whole-number percentages.

    “For numeric information, health professionals reported preferring risk predictions expressed as whole-number percentages”

    From Explainable AI in hospital clinical decision support systems: A scoping review of healthcare professionals’ perspectives (2026) · cites this paper as [33]

    In Results > Feasibility of the Prediction Tool in Clinical Practice (page unavailable), the paper reports that some electrophysiologists found percentage scores with decimals uncertain or difficult to interpret. It does not explicitly say they preferred whole-number percentages, and the finding concerns some electrophysiologists rather than health professionals generally. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • While several systems had been implemented or were near live, the majority remained at prototype or pre-implementation stages.

    “While several systems had been implemented or were near live [26,30,31,33,36], the majority remained at prototype or pre-implementation stages.”

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: 59

  1. [1]Al-Khatib SM Stevenson WG Ackerman MJ Bryant WJ Callans DJ Curtis AB Deal BJ Dickfeld T Field ME Fonarow GC Gillis AM Granger CB Hammill SC Hlatky MA Joglar JA Kay GN Matlock DD Myerburg RJ Page RL 2017 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for Management of Patients With Ventricular Arrhythmias and the Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society J Am Coll Cardiol 2018 10 02 72 14 e91 e220 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.10.054 29097296 S0735-1097(17)41306-4 29097296 · DOI
  2. [2]Nanthakumar K Epstein AE Kay GN Plumb VJ Lee DS Prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction: a pooled analysis of 10 primary prevention trials J Am Coll Cardiol 2004 12 07 44 11 2166 72 10.1016/j.jacc.2004.08.054 15582314 S0735-1097(04)01744-9 15582314 · DOI
  3. [5]Landolina M Perego GB Lunati M Curnis A Guenzati G Vicentini A Parati G Borghi G Zanaboni P Valsecchi S Marzegalli M Remote monitoring reduces healthcare use and improves quality of care in heart failure patients with implantable defibrillators: the evolution of management strategies of heart failure patients with implantable defibrillators (EVOLVO) study Circulation 2012 06 19 125 24 2985 92 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.111.088971 22626743 CIRCULATIONAHA.111.088971 22626743 · DOI · Paper page
  4. [6]Saxon LA Hayes DL Gilliam FR Heidenreich PA Day J Seth M Meyer TE Jones PW Boehmer JP Long-term outcome after ICD and CRT implantation and influence of remote device follow-up: the ALTITUDE survival study Circulation 2010 12 07 122 23 2359 67 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.960633 21098452 CIRCULATIONAHA.110.960633 21098452 · DOI · Paper page
  5. [7]Crossley GH Boyle A Vitense H Chang Y Mead RH CONNECT Investigators The CONNECT (Clinical Evaluation of Remote Notification to Reduce Time to Clinical Decision) trial: the value of wireless remote monitoring with automatic clinician alerts J Am Coll Cardiol 2011 03 08 57 10 1181 9 10.1016/j.jacc.2010.12.012 21255955 S0735-1097(10)05068-0 21255955 · DOI · Paper page
  6. [8]Cronin EM Ching EA Varma N Martin DO Wilkoff BL Lindsay BD Remote monitoring of cardiovascular devices: a time and activity analysis Heart Rhythm 2012 12 9 12 1947 51 10.1016/j.hrthm.2012.08.002 22864266 S1547-5271(12)00860-0 22864266 · DOI
  7. [9]Ricci RP Morichelli L D'Onofrio A Calò L Vaccari D Zanotto G Curnis A Buja G Rovai N Gargaro A Manpower and outpatient clinic workload for remote monitoring of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices: data from the HomeGuide Registry J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2014 11 28 25 11 1216 23 10.1111/jce.12482 24964380 24964380 · DOI
  8. [10]Andersen TO Nielsen KD Moll J Svendsen JH Unpacking telemonitoring work: Workload and telephone calls to patients in implanted cardiac device care Int J Med Inform 2019 09 129 381 387 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2019.06.021 31445281 S1386-5056(18)31415-1 31445281 · DOI
  9. [11]Gustafson, PE Implementing Remote Monitoring of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: The Clinical Experience from One Center in Sweden The Journal of Innovations in Cardiac Rhythm Management 2014 5 1733 1739 10.19102/icrm.2014.050808 · DOI
  10. [12]Patel B Sengupta P Machine learning for predicting cardiac events: what does the future hold? Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther 2020 02 23 18 2 77 84 10.1080/14779072.2020.1732208 32066289 32066289 PMC7962010 · DOI
  11. [13]Crowley RJ Tan YJ Ioannidis JPA Empirical assessment of bias in machine learning diagnostic test accuracy studies J Am Med Inform Assoc 2020 07 01 27 7 1092 1101 10.1093/jamia/ocaa075 32548642 5858298 32548642 PMC7647361 · DOI
  12. [14]Lagu T Pekow PS Shieh M Stefan M Pack QR Kashef MA Atreya AR Valania G Slawsky MT Lindenauer PK Validation and Comparison of Seven Mortality Prediction Models for Hospitalized Patients With Acute Decompensated Heart Failure Circ: Heart Failure 2016 08 9 8 e002912 10.1161/circheartfailure.115.002912 27514749 PMC4988343 · DOI
  13. [15]Pan Y Fu M Cheng B Tao X Guo J Enhanced Deep Learning Assisted Convolutional Neural Network for Heart Disease Prediction on the Internet of Medical Things Platform IEEE Access 2020 8 189503 189512 10.1109/access.2020.3026214 · DOI
  14. [16]Eltrass AS Tayel MB Ammar AI A new automated CNN deep learning approach for identification of ECG congestive heart failure and arrhythmia using constant-Q non-stationary Gabor transform Biomedical Signal Processing and Control 2021 03 65 102326 10.1016/j.bspc.2020.102326 · DOI
  15. [17]Hammad M Iliyasu AM Subasi A Ho ESL El-Latif AAA A Multitier Deep Learning Model for Arrhythmia Detection IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas 2021 70 1 9 10.1109/tim.2020.3033072 · DOI
  16. [18]Shouval R Hadanny A Shlomo N Iakobishvili Z Unger R Zahger D Alcalai R Atar S Gottlieb S Matetzky S Goldenberg I Beigel R Machine learning for prediction of 30-day mortality after ST elevation myocardial infraction: An Acute Coronary Syndrome Israeli Survey data mining study Int J Cardiol 2017 11 01 246 7 13 10.1016/j.ijcard.2017.05.067 28867023 S0167-5273(16)32869-8 28867023 · DOI
  17. [19]Karnan H Natarajan S Manivel R Human machine interfacing technique for diagnosis of ventricular arrhythmia using supervisory machine learning algorithms Concurrency Computat Pract Exper 2018 10 19 33 4 e5001 10.1002/cpe.5001 · DOI
  18. [20]Attia ZI Noseworthy PA Lopez-Jimenez F Asirvatham SJ Deshmukh AJ Gersh BJ Carter RE Yao X Rabinstein AA Erickson BJ Kapa S Friedman PA An artificial intelligence-enabled ECG algorithm for the identification of patients with atrial fibrillation during sinus rhythm: a retrospective analysis of outcome prediction The Lancet 2019 09 07 394 10201 861 867 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31721-0 31378392 S0140-6736(19)31721-0 31378392 · DOI · Paper page
  19. [21]Shakibfar S Krause O Lund-Andersen C Aranda A Moll J Andersen TO Svendsen JH Petersen HH Igel C Predicting electrical storms by remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator patients using machine learning Europace 2019 02 01 21 2 268 274 10.1093/europace/euy257 30508072 5224771 30508072 · DOI
  20. [22]Oh S Kim JH Choi S Lee HJ Hong J Kwon SH Physician Confidence in Artificial Intelligence: An Online Mobile Survey J Med Internet Res 2019 03 25 21 3 e12422 10.2196/12422 30907742 v21i3e12422 30907742 PMC6452288 · DOI · Paper page
  21. [24]Bruun M Frederiksen KS Rhodius-Meester HFM Baroni M Gjerum L Koikkalainen J Urhemaa T Tolonen A van Gils M Rueckert D Dyremose N Andersen BB Lemstra AW Hallikainen M Kurl S Herukka S Remes AM Waldemar G Soininen H Mecocci P van der Flier WM Lötjönen Jyrki Hasselbalch SG Impact of a clinical decision support tool on prediction of progression in early-stage dementia: a prospective validation study Alzheimers Res Ther 2019 03 20 11 1 25 10.1186/s13195-019-0482-3 30894218 10.1186/s13195-019-0482-3 30894218 PMC6425602 · DOI
  22. [25]Manz C Chivers C Liu M Regli SB Changolkar S Evans CN Rareshide CA Draugelis M Braun J Navathe AS Kumar P Bekelman JE Patel MS O'Connor N Schuchter LM Shulman LN Parikh RB Prospective validation of a machine learning algorithm to predict short-term mortality among outpatients with cancer JCO 2020 05 20 38 15_suppl 2009 2009 10.1200/jco.2020.38.15_suppl.2009 · DOI
  23. [26]Abràmoff MD Lavin PT Birch M Shah N Folk JC Pivotal trial of an autonomous AI-based diagnostic system for detection of diabetic retinopathy in primary care offices NPJ Digit Med 2018 1 39 10.1038/s41746-018-0040-6 10.1038/s41746-018-0040-6 31304320 40 31304320 PMC6550188 · DOI · Paper page
  24. [27]Gulshan V Peng L Coram M Stumpe MC Wu D Narayanaswamy A Venugopalan S Widner K Madams T Cuadros J Kim R Raman R Nelson PC Mega JL Webster DR Development and Validation of a Deep Learning Algorithm for Detection of Diabetic Retinopathy in Retinal Fundus Photographs JAMA 2016 12 13 316 22 2402 2410 10.1001/jama.2016.17216 27898976 2588763 27898976 · DOI · Paper page
  25. [28]Kang J Morin O Hong JC Closing the Gap Between Machine Learning and Clinical Cancer Care-First Steps Into a Larger World JAMA Oncol 2020 11 01 6 11 1731 1732 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.4314 32970129 2770694 32970129 · DOI
  26. [30]Chen JH Asch SM Machine Learning and Prediction in Medicine - Beyond the Peak of Inflated Expectations N Engl J Med 2017 06 29 376 26 2507 2509 10.1056/NEJMp1702071 28657867 28657867 PMC5953825 · DOI · Paper page
  27. [31]Lindsell CJ Stead WW Johnson KB Action-Informed Artificial Intelligence-Matching the Algorithm to the Problem JAMA 2020 06 02 323 21 2141 2142 10.1001/jama.2020.5035 32356878 2765667 32356878 · DOI
  28. [32]Topol EJ High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence Nat Med 2019 01 25 1 44 56 10.1038/s41591-018-0300-7 30617339 10.1038/s41591-018-0300-7 30617339 · DOI · Paper page
  29. [33]Lee J Is Artificial Intelligence Better Than Human Clinicians in Predicting Patient Outcomes? J Med Internet Res 2020 08 26 22 8 e19918 10.2196/19918 32845249 v22i8e19918 32845249 PMC7481865 · DOI
  30. [35]Coiera E The Last Mile: Where Artificial Intelligence Meets Reality J Med Internet Res 2019 11 08 21 11 e16323 10.2196/16323 31702559 v21i11e16323 31702559 PMC7351266 · DOI · Paper page
  31. [36]Abdul A Vermeulen J Wang D Lim BY Kankanhalli M Trends and Trajectories for Explainable, Accountable and Intelligible Systems: An HCI Research Agenda CHI '18: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2018 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems April 21-26, 2018 Montreal, QC, Canada 1 18 10.1145/3173574.3174156 · DOI · Paper page
  32. [37]Wolf CT Explainability scenarios: towards scenario-based XAI design IUI '19: Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces 2019 24th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces March 17-20, 2019 Marina del Ray, CA 252 257 10.1145/3301275.3302317 · DOI
  33. [40]Coiera EW Artificial intelligence in medicine: the challenges ahead J Am Med Inform Assoc 1996 3 6 363 6 10.1136/jamia.1996.97084510 8930853 8930853 PMC116321 · DOI
  34. [41]Keane PA Topol EJ With an eye to AI and autonomous diagnosis NPJ Digit Med 2018 1 40 10.1038/s41746-018-0048-y 10.1038/s41746-018-0048-y 31304321 48 31304321 PMC6550235 · DOI · Paper page
  35. [43]Kocaballi AB Ijaz K Laranjo L Quiroz JC Rezazadegan D Tong HL Willcock S Berkovsky S Coiera E Envisioning an artificial intelligence documentation assistant for future primary care consultations: A co-design study with general practitioners J Am Med Inform Assoc 2020 11 01 27 11 1695 1704 10.1093/jamia/ocaa131 32845984 5897463 32845984 PMC7671614 · DOI · Paper page
  36. [44]Petkovic D Altman R Wong M Vigil A Improving the explainability of Random Forest classifier - user centered approach Pac Symp Biocomput 2018 23 204 215 29218882 9789813235533_0019 29218882 PMC5728671
  37. [45]Benda NC Das LT Abramson EL Blackburn K Thoman A Kaushal R Zhang Y Ancker JS "How did you get to this number?" Stakeholder needs for implementing predictive analytics: a pre-implementation qualitative study J Am Med Inform Assoc 2020 05 01 27 5 709 716 10.1093/jamia/ocaa021 32159774 5803107 32159774 PMC7647269 · DOI
  38. [46]Sendak M Elish MC Gao M Futoma J Ratliff W Nichols M Bedoya A Balu S O'Brien C "The human body is a black box": supporting clinical decision-making with deep learning FAT '20: Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency 2020 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency January 27-30, 2020 Barcelona, Spain 99 109 10.1145/3351095.3372827 · DOI · Paper page
  39. [48]Andersen TO Nunes F Wilcox L Kaziunas E Matthiesen S Magrabi F Realizing AI in Healthcare: Challenges Appearing in the Wild CHI EA '21: Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2021 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems May 8-13, 2021 Yokohama, Japan 1 5 10.1145/3411763.3441347 · DOI
  40. [50]Barda AJ Horvat CM Hochheiser H A qualitative research framework for the design of user-centered displays of explanations for machine learning model predictions in healthcare BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2020 10 08 20 1 257 10.1186/s12911-020-01276-x 33032582 10.1186/s12911-020-01276-x 33032582 PMC7545557 · DOI · Paper page
  41. [55]Ribeiro MT Singh S Guestrin C "Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier KDD '16: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining 2016 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining August 13-17, 2016 San Francisco, CA 1135 1144 10.1145/2939672.2939778 · DOI · Paper page
  42. [56]Andersen T Bjørn P Kensing F Moll J Designing for collaborative interpretation in telemonitoring: re-introducing patients as diagnostic agents Int J Med Inform 2011 08 80 8 e112 26 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2010.09.010 21067968 S1386-5056(10)00171-1 21067968 · DOI
  43. [57]Altman NS An Introduction to Kernel and Nearest-Neighbor Nonparametric Regression The American Statistician 1992 08 46 3 175 10.2307/2685209 10.2307/2685209 · DOI
  44. [58]Friedman JH Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine Ann. Statist 2001 10 1 29 5 1189 232 10.1214/aos/1013203451 · DOI · Paper page
  45. [59]Freund Y Schapire R A short introduction to boosting Journal of Japanese Society for Artificial Intelligence 1999 9 14 5 771 780
  46. [60]Chang CC Lin CJ LIBSVM ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol 2011 04 2 3 1 27 10.1145/1961189.1961199 10.1145/1961189.1961199 · DOI · Paper page
  47. [61]Karim F Majumdar S Darabi H Chen S LSTM Fully Convolutional Networks for Time Series Classification IEEE Access 2018 6 1662 1669 10.1109/access.2017.2779939 · DOI
  48. [63]Li AC Kannry JL Kushniruk A Chrimes D McGinn TG Edonyabo D Mann DM Integrating usability testing and think-aloud protocol analysis with "near-live" clinical simulations in evaluating clinical decision support Int J Med Inform 2012 11 81 11 761 72 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2012.02.009 22456088 S1386-5056(12)00041-X 22456088 · DOI
  49. [64]Charmaz K Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis 2006 London Sage Publications
  50. [65]Abdullah R Fakieh B Health Care Employees' Perceptions of the Use of Artificial Intelligence Applications: Survey Study J Med Internet Res 2020 05 14 22 5 e17620 10.2196/17620 32406857 v22i5e17620 32406857 PMC7256754 · DOI · Paper page
  51. [66]Kocielnik R Amershi S Bennett PN Will You Accept an Imperfect AI? Exploring Designs for Adjusting End-user Expectations of AI Systems CHI '19: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2019 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems May 4-9, 2019 Glasgow, Scotland 1 14 10.1145/3290605.3300641 · DOI · Paper page
  52. [67]Cai CJ Winter S Steiner D Wilcox L Terry M "Hello AI": Uncovering the Onboarding Needs of Medical Practitioners for Human-AI Collaborative Decision-Making Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact 2019 11 07 3 CSCW 1 24 10.1145/3359206 · DOI · Paper page
  53. [68]LaRosa E Danks D Impacts on Trust of Healthcare AI AIES '18: Proceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society 2018 2018 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society February 2-3, 2018 New Orleans, LA 210 215 10.1145/3278721.3278771 · DOI
  54. [70]Amann J Blasimme A Vayena E Frey D Madai VI Precise4Q consortium Explainability for artificial intelligence in healthcare: a multidisciplinary perspective BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2020 11 30 20 1 310 10.1186/s12911-020-01332-6 33256715 10.1186/s12911-020-01332-6 33256715 PMC7706019 · DOI · Paper page
  55. [71]Maniatopoulos G Procter R Llewellyn S Harvey G Boyd A Moving beyond local practice: reconfiguring the adoption of a breast cancer diagnostic technology Soc Sci Med 2015 04 131 98 106 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.02.036 25769108 S0277-9536(15)00128-8 25769108 · DOI
  56. [72]Wang D Yang Q Abdul A Lim BY Designing Theory-Driven User-Centric Explainable AI CHI '19: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2019 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems May 4-9, 2019 Glasgow, Scotland 1 15 10.1145/3290605.3300831 · DOI · Paper page
  57. [73]Gajowniczek K Grzegorczyk I Ząbkowski T Reducing False Arrhythmia Alarms Using Different Methods of Probability and Class Assignment in Random Forest Learning Methods Sensors (Basel) 2019 04 02 19 7 1588 10.3390/s19071588 30986930 s19071588 PMC6479538 30986930 · DOI
  58. [74]Azar AT Elshazly HI Hassanien AE Elkorany AM A random forest classifier for lymph diseases Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2014 02 113 2 465 73 10.1016/j.cmpb.2013.11.004 10.1016/j.cmpb.2013.11.004 24290902 S0169-2607(13)00375-1 24290902 · DOI
  59. [75]Khalilia M Chakraborty S Popescu M Predicting disease risks from highly imbalanced data using random forest BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2011 07 29 11 1 51 13 10.1186/1472-6947-11-51 21801360 1472-6947-11-51 21801360 PMC3163175 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Matthiesen, S., Diederichsen, S. Z., Hansen, M. K. H., Villumsen, C., Lassen, M. C. H., Jacobsen, P. K., Risum, N., Winkel, B. G., Philbert, B. T., Svendsen, J. H., & Andersen, T. O.
Affiliations
  • University of Copenhagen (DK)
  • Copenhagen University Hospital (DK)
Corresponding author
Matthiesen, Stina
Venue
JMIR Human Factors
Published
2021-11-26
Volume
8
Issue
4
Pages
e26964
ISSN
2292-9495 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3204979371
Cited by
45
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 5
FWCI
1.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR Human Factors (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Gentofte Hospital
  • Rigshospitalet
  • Horizon 2020 Framework Programme
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Keywords
clinical decision support, machine learning, ventricular tachycardia, ventricular fibrillation, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, remote monitoring, arrhythmia prediction, AI implementation, clinician perspectives, trust in AI, socio-technical challenges, clinical workflow, delegation of decision-making, data quality

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