Integrating explainable machine learning in clinical decision support systems: study involving a modified design thinking approach
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Background: Though there has been considerable effort to implement machine learning (ML) methods for health care, clinical implementation has lagged. Incorporating explainable machine learning (XML) methods through the development of a decision support tool using a design thinking approach is expected to lead to greater uptake of such tools. Objective: This work aimed to explore how constant engagement of clinician end users can address the lack of adoption of ML tools in clinical contexts due to their lack of transparency and address challenges related to presenting explainability in a decision support interface. Methods: We used a design thinking approach augmented with additional theoretical frameworks to provide more robust approaches to different phases of design. In particular, in the problem definition phase, we incorporated the nonadoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, and sustainability of technology in health care (NASSS) framework to assess these aspects in a health care network. This process helped focus on the development of a prognostic tool that predicted the likelihood of admission to an intensive care ward based on disease severity in chest x-ray images. In the ideate, prototype, and test phases, we incorporated a metric framework to assess physician trust in artificial intelligence (AI) tools. This allowed us to compare physicians’ assessments of the domain representation, action ability, and consistency of the tool. Results: Physicians found the design of the prototype elegant, and domain appropriate representation of data was displayed in the tool. They appreciated the simplified explainability overlay, which only displayed the most predictive patches that cumulatively explained 90% of the final admission risk score. Finally, in terms of consistency, physicians unanimously appreciated the capacity to compare multiple x-ray images in the same view. They also appreciated the ability to toggle the explainability overlay so that both options made it easier for them to assess how consistently the tool was identifying elements of the x-ray image they felt would contribute to overall disease severity. Conclusions: The adopted approach is situated in an evolving space concerned with incorporating XML or AI technologies into health care software. We addressed the alignment of AI as it relates to clinician trust, describing an approach to wire framing and prototyping, which incorporates the use of a theoretical framework for trust in the design process itself. Moreover, we proposed that alignment of AI is dependent upon integration of end users throughout the larger design process. Our work shows the importance and value of engaging end users prior to tool development. We believe that the described approach is a unique and valuable contribution that outlines a direction for ML experts, user experience designers, and clinician end users on how to collaborate in the creation of trustworthy and usable XML-based clinical decision support tools.
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?
Five studies did not provide sufficient detail on their qualitative data analysis process, making it difficult to determine the validity of the findings.
“Five studies did not provide sufficient detail on their qualitative data analysis process, and this made it difficult to determine the validity of the findings [31,32,34,37,38].”
From Explainable AI in hospital clinical decision support systems: A scoping review of healthcare professionals’ perspectives (2026) · cites this paper as [37]
The Methods > Empathize Phase describes transcription and thematic coding in NVivo. The Methods > Define Phase specifies the analysis framework, how the initial codes were developed and reviewed, and where a detailed summary and sample coded data are provided. That conflicts with characterizing this study as providing insufficient detail about its qualitative analysis; the paper does not say its findings were difficult to validate for that reason. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredEight studies linked perceived usefulness to the tool's impact on workload.
“Eight studies linked perceived usefulness to the tool’s impact on workload [26,29–31,33,35,37,38].”
From Explainable AI in hospital clinical decision support systems: A scoping review of healthcare professionals’ perspectives (2026) · cites this paper as [37]
In Results > Testing Phase (High Fidelity) (page unavailable), physicians said the tool could be helpful for planning ICU admissions and managing staff resources. That supports a link between usefulness and staffing needs, but the paper does not explicitly link perceived usefulness to the tool’s impact on workload. The count of eight studies belongs to the citing paper’s group of references, not to this source alone. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredHealth professionals described XAI systems as useful for supporting clinical decision making.
“Health professionals also described XAI systems as useful for supporting clinical decision making [29,31,33,35–37].”
From Explainable AI in hospital clinical decision support systems: A scoping review of healthcare professionals’ perspectives (2026) · cites this paper as [37]
Health professionals in three studies reported XAI explanations could help communicate risks or escalations in care to patients.
“Health professionals in three studies reported XAI explanations could help communicate risks or escalations in care to patients [23,35,37].”
From Explainable AI in hospital clinical decision support systems: A scoping review of healthcare professionals’ perspectives (2026) · cites this paper as [37]
Participants only described LIME's usefulness in one study.
“however, participants only described its usefulness in one.”
From Explainable AI in hospital clinical decision support systems: A scoping review of healthcare professionals’ perspectives (2026) · cites this paper as [37]
In Shula et al.'s study, it was unclear to participants how the consolidation in the image impacted the severity score and how the severity score influenced the output (risk of ICU admission).
“However, it was unclear to participants how the consolidation in the image impacted the severity score and how the severity score influenced the output (i.e., the risk of ICU admission).”
From Explainable AI in hospital clinical decision support systems: A scoping review of healthcare professionals’ perspectives (2026) · cites this paper as [37]
LIME were used by models in three studies.
“Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (LIME) were also used by models in three studies [33,34,37]”
From Explainable AI in hospital clinical decision support systems: A scoping review of healthcare professionals’ perspectives (2026) · cites this paper as [37]
In Shula et al.'s study, participants valued the option to toggle the explainability overlay, as it helped them assess how consistently the tool identified elements of the x-ray image that could contribute to the overall disease severity.
“Participants valued the option to toggle the explainability overlay, as it helped them assess how consistently the tool identified elements of the x-ray image that could contribute to the overall disease severity.”
From Explainable AI in hospital clinical decision support systems: A scoping review of healthcare professionals’ perspectives (2026) · cites this paper as [37]
Eight studies reported participants desired actionable information from XAI systems.
“Eight studies in this review reported participants desired actionable information from the XAI systems [23–25,28,30,32,36,37].”
From Explainable AI in hospital clinical decision support systems: A scoping review of healthcare professionals’ perspectives (2026) · cites this paper as [37]
Several studies lacked detail on the recruitment of participants.
“Several studies lacked detail on the recruitment of participants [32,34,37,38].”
From Explainable AI in hospital clinical decision support systems: A scoping review of healthcare professionals’ perspectives (2026) · cites this paper as [37]
The Methods (Empathize and Test Phases; pages unavailable) describe the physician participants and focus-group activities, while the Discussion (Limitations; page unavailable) notes that only physicians participated. Searches for recruitment, invitations, and participant selection found no passage assessing whether recruitment was reported in sufficient detail. The copy therefore does not establish the citing sentence’s assessment of reporting across several studies. (LLM, conf=0.68)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learning
Doshi-Velez, F., & Kim, B. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1702.08608 · Cited by 3,121 · see citing works
Greenhalgh, T., Wherton, J., Papoutsi, C., Lynch, J., Hughes, G., A'Court, C., Hinder, S., Fahy, N., Procter, R., & Shaw, S. (2017) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.8775 · Cited by 2,887 · cited 2× · see citing works
“…machine learning [4] Framework for clinician trust in machine learning [4] Framework for clinician trust in machine learning [4] NASSS b framework [15] N/A a Theoretical frameworks used in analysis/design a N/A: not applicable. b NASSS: nonadoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, and…”
MethodRoberts, M., Driggs, D., Thorpe, M., Gilbey, J., Yeung, M., Ursprung, S., Aviles-Rivero, A. I., Etmann, C., McCague, C., Beer, L., et al. (2021) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-021-00307-0 · Cited by 1,044 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Barriers to adoption in health care include data quality; data bias; and lack of proper validation, reproducibility, and transparency [2].”
BackgroundWhat do we need to build explainable AI systems for the medical domain?
Holzinger, A., Biemann, C., Pattichis, C. S., & Kell, D. B. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1712.09923 · Cited by 636 · see citing works
Chen, H., Gomez, C., Huang, C.-M., & Unberath, M. (2022) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-022-00699-2 · Cited by 300 · see citing works
The Next Generation of Medical Decision Support: A Roadmap Toward Transparent Expert Companions
Bruckert, S., Finzel, B., & Schmid, U. (2020) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.3389/frai.2020.507973 · Cited by 66 · see citing works
Explainable AI in Industry: Practical Challenges and Lessons Learned
Gade, K., Geyik, S., Kenthapadi, K., Mithal, V., & Taly, A. (2020) · Companion Proceedings of the Web Conference 2020 · doi:10.1145/3366424.3383110 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 18
- [1]Wiens J Saria S Sendak M Ghassemi M Liu VX Doshi-Velez F Jung K Heller K Kale D Saeed M Ossorio PN Thadaney-Israni S Goldenberg A Do no harm: a roadmap for responsible machine learning for health care Nat Med 2019 09 25 9 1337 1340 10.1038/s41591-019-0548-6 31427808 10.1038/s41591-019-0548-6 31427808 · DOI · Paper page
- [4]Tonekaboni S Joshi S McCradden M Goldenberg A What clinicians want: Contextualizing explainable machine learning for clinical end use Proceedings of Machine Learning Research 2019 1 21
- [5]Augmented intelligence in medicine American Medical Association 2024-03-10 https://www.ama-assn.org/amaone/augmented-intelligence-ai
- [7]Rudin C Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead Nat Mach Intell 2019 05 1 5 206 215 10.1038/s42256-019-0048-x 35603010 35603010 PMC9122117 · DOI · Paper page
- [8]Liao T Taori R Raji D Schmidt L Are We Learning Yet? A Meta Review of Evaluation Failures Across Machine Learning Proceedings of the Neural Information Processing Systems Track on Datasets and Benchmarks 2021 35th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NeurIPS 2021 December 6-14, 2021 Virtual, Online
- [10]Abdul A Vermeulen J Wang D Lim B 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 10.1145/3173574.3174156 · DOI · Paper page
- [11]Schwartz JM Moy AJ Rossetti SC Elhadad N Cato KD Clinician involvement in research on machine learning-based predictive clinical decision support for the hospital setting: A scoping review J Am Med Inform Assoc 2021 03 01 28 3 653 663 10.1093/jamia/ocaa296 33325504 6039107 33325504 PMC7936403 · DOI
- [13]Brown T Katz B Change by design J of Product Innov Manag 2011 03 07 28 3 381 383 10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00806.x · DOI
- [14]Brown T Design thinking Harv Bus Rev 2008 06 86 6 84 92, 141 18605031 18605031
- [16]Levac D Colquhoun H O'Brien KK Scoping studies: advancing the methodology Implement Sci 2010 09 20 5 69 10.1186/1748-5908-5-69 20854677 1748-5908-5-69 20854677 PMC2954944 · DOI · Paper page
- [17]Greenhalgh T Abimbola S The NASSS Framework - A synthesis of multiple theories of technology implementation Stud Health Technol Inform 2019 07 30 263 193 204 10.3233/SHTI190123 31411163 SHTI190123 31411163 · DOI
- [18]Fereday J Muir-Cochrane E Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2016 11 29 5 1 80 92 10.1177/160940690600500107 · DOI · Paper page
- [19]Cohen JP Dao L Roth K Morrison P Bengio Y Abbasi AF Shen B Mahsa HK Ghassemi M Li H Duong TQ Predicting COVID-19 pneumonia severity on chest X-ray with deep learning Cureus 2020 07 28 12 7 e9448 10.7759/cureus.9448 32864270 32864270 PMC7451075 · DOI
- [21]Ribeiro M 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, USA 10.1145/2939672.2939778 · DOI · Paper page
- [29]Wang D Yang Q Abdul A Lim B 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, UK 10.1145/3290605.3300831 · DOI · Paper page
- [30]Pumplun L Fecho M Wahl N Peters F Buxmann P Adoption of machine learning systems for medical diagnostics in clinics: Qualitative interview study J Med Internet Res 2021 10 15 23 10 e29301 10.2196/29301 34652275 v23i10e29301 34652275 PMC8556641 · DOI · Paper page
- [31]Andersen T Nunes F Wilcox L Coiera E Rogers Y Introduction to the special issue on human-centred AI in healthcare: Challenges appearing in the wild ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact 2023 06 30 30 2 1 12 10.1145/3589961 · DOI
- [32]Nalin K A distributed decision making process from a systems perspective: following 33 patients at an emergency department ResearchGate 2017 2024-03-10 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315729386_A_distributed_decision_making_process_from_a_systems_perspective_following_33_patients_at_an_emergency_department
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Association between risk factors and major cancers: explainable machine learning approach
Huang, X., Ren, S., Mao, X., Chen, S., Chen, E., He, Y., & Jiang, Y. (2025) · JMIR Cancer · doi:10.2196/62833 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Van Dort, B. A., Engelsma, T., Sneekes, P., Peute, L., & Medlock, S. (2026) · PLOS Digital Health · doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0001417 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
“Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (LIME) were also used by models in three studies [33,34,37], however, participants only described its usefulness in one.”
Influential
- Authors
- Shulha, M., Hovdebo, J., D’Souza, V., Thibault, F., & Harmouche, R.
- Affiliations
- Jewish General Hospital (CA)
- National Research Council Canada (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Shulha, Michael
- Venue
- JMIR Formative Research
- Publisher
- JMIR Publications Inc.
- Published
- 2024-04-16
- Volume
- 8
- Pages
- e50475
- ISSN
- 2561-326X (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC11061789
- OpenAlex
- W4391937457
- Cited by
- 22
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 15 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3
- FWCI
- 3.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- JMIR Formative Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- NPARC (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Keywords
- explainable machine learning, clinical decision support systems, design thinking, NASSS framework, health technology adoption, chest radiography, disease severity, physician engagement, user-centered design, AI alignment
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