CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 4Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationElectronic Health Records Systems

A Survey on Human-Centered Evaluation of Explainable AI Methods in Clinical Decision Support Systems

Open access
Gambetti, Alessandro, Han, Qiwei, Shen, Hong, Soares, Claudia·2025·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2502.09849arXiv 2502.09849
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is essential for the transparency and clinical adoption of Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSS). However, the real-world effectiveness of existing XAI methods remains limited and is inconsistently evaluated. This study conducts a systematic PRISMA-guided survey of 31 human-centered evaluations (HCE) of XAI applied to CDSS, classifying them by XAI methodology, evaluation design, and adoption barrier. Our findings reveal that most existing studies employ post-hoc, model-agnostic approaches such as SHAP and Grad-CAM, typically assessed through small-scale clinician studies. The results show that over 80% of the studies adopt post-hoc, model-agnostic approaches such as SHAP and Grad-CAM, and that clinician sample sizes remain below 25 participants. The findings indicate that explanations generally improve clinician trust and diagnostic confidence, but frequently increase cognitive load and exhibit misalignment with domain reasoning processes. To bridge these gaps, we propose a stakeholder-centric evaluation framework that integrates socio-technical principles and human-computer interaction to guide the future development of clinically viable and trustworthy XAI-based CDSS.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2502.09849

Cites

1 of 1 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?

  • The framework provides a foundation for mitigating the effects of differing clinician attitudes through user profiling and training, but it does not offer a complete solution.

    “While our framework provides a foundation for mitigating this through user profiling and training, it does not offer a complete solution [84].”

    From Explainable AI for Clinical Decision Support Systems: Literature Review, Key Gaps, and Research Synthesis (2025) · cites this paper as [84]

  • Early adopters of an AI-CDSS may be susceptible to automation bias, leading to over-reliance on AI recommendations, while more skeptical users might exhibit confirmation bias, ignoring AI outputs that contradict their pre-existing beliefs.

    “for instance, early adopters may be susceptible to automation bias, leading to over-reliance on AI recommendations [82], while more skeptical users might exhibit confirmation bias, ignoring AI outputs that contradict their pre-existing beliefs [84].”

    From Explainable AI for Clinical Decision Support Systems: Literature Review, Key Gaps, and Research Synthesis (2025) · cites this paper as [84]

    The citation attached to this source supports the clause about early adopters and automation bias; the separate clause about skeptical users has its own citation. The survey discusses clinicians’ partial reliance on AI recommendations (section 3.2, p. 6) and cautious use of explanations (Short Summary of Findings, p. 8), but our copy does not link early adoption to automation bias or over-reliance. Searches for “early adopters” and “automation bias” found no passage making that link. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 72

  1. [Abraham et al. , 2023] Joanna Abraham, Brian Bartek, Alicia Meng, Christopher Ryan King, Bing Xue, Chenyang Lu, and Michael S. Avidan. Integrating machine learning predictions for perioperative risk management: Towards an empirical design of a flexible-standardized risk assessment tool. JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL INFORMATICS , 137, JAN 2023.
  2. [Ackerman, 2000] Mark S Ackerman. The intellectual challenge of CSCW: the gap between social requirements and technical feasibility. Human-Computer Interaction , 15(23):179-203, 2000.
  3. [Amann et al. , 2022] Julia Amann, Dennis Vetter, Stig Nikolaj Blomberg, Helle Collatz Christensen, Megan Coffee, Sara Gerke, Thomas K Gilbert, Thilo Hagendorff, Sune Holm, Michelle Livne, et al. To explain or not to explain?-Artificial intelligence explainability in clinical decision support systems. PLOS Digital Health , 1(2):e0000016, 2022.
  4. [Ancker et al. , 2021] Jessica S Ancker, Holly O Witteman, Bilal Hafeez, Tania Provencher, Sarah Van de Velde, and Miranda Carrington. The invisible work of personal health information management among people with multiple chronic conditions: qualitative interview study among patients and providers. Journal of Medical Internet Research , 23(6):e26112, 2021.
  5. [Andreu-Perez et al. , 2015] Javier Andreu-Perez, Carmen C. Y. Poon, Robert D. Merrifield, Stephen T. C. Wong, and Guang-Zhong Yang. Big data for health. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics , 19(4):1193-1208, 2015.
  6. [Antoniadi et al. , 2021] Anna M Antoniadi, Mark Galvin, Mark Heverin, Orla Hardiman, and Catherine Mooney. Prediction of caregiver quality of life in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis using explainable machine learning. Scientific Reports , 11(1):12237, 2021.
  7. [Apley and Zhu, 2020] Daniel W Apley and Jingyu Zhu. Visualizing the effects of predictor variables in black box supervised learning models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology , 82(4):10591086, 2020.
  8. [Bhattacharya et al. , 2023] Aditya Bhattacharya, Jeroen Ooge, Gregor Stiglic, and Katrien Verbert. Directive explanations for monitoring the risk of diabetes onset: Introducing directive data-centric explanations and combinations to support what-if explorations. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces , IUI '23, page 204-219, New York, NY, USA, 2023. Association for Computing Machinery.
  9. [Bihorac et al. , 2019] Azra Bihorac, Tezcan OzrazgatBaslanti, Ashkan Ebadi, Amir Motaei, Mohcine Madkour, Panagote M Pardalos, Gloria Lipori, William R Hogan, Philip A Efron, Frederick Moore, et al. Mysurgeryrisk: development and validation of a machine-learning risk algorithm for major complications and death after surgery. Annals of Surgery , 269(4):652-662, 2019.
  10. [Brennan et al. , 2019] Meghan Brennan, Sahil Puri, Tezcan Ozrazgat-Baslanti, Zheng Feng, Matthew Ruppert, Haleh Hashemighouchani, Petar Momcilovic, Xiaolin Li, Daisy Zhe Wang, and Azra Bihorac. Comparing clinical judgment with the mysurgeryrisk algorithm for preoperative risk assessment: a pilot usability study. Surgery , 165(5):1035-1045, 2019.
  11. [Cabitza et al. , 2025] Federico Cabitza, Lorenzo Famiglini, Caterina Fregosi, Samuele Pe, Enea Parimbelli, Giovanni Andrea La Maida, and Enrico Gallazzi. From oracular to judicial: Enhancing clinical decision making through contrasting explanations and a novel interaction protocol. In Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces , IUI '25, page 745-754, New
  12. [Chen et al. , 2021] Hugh Chen, Scott M Lundberg, Gabriel Erion, Jerry H Kim, and Su-In Lee. Forecasting adverse surgical events using self-supervised transfer learning for physiological signals. NPJ Digital Medicine , 4(1):167, 2021.
  13. [Chetoui et al. , 2021] Marwen Chetoui, Moulay A Akhloufi, Bardia Yousefi, and El Mustapha Bouattane. Explainable covid-19 detection on chest x-rays using an end-to-end deep convolutional neural network architecture. Big Data and Cognitive Computing , 5(4):73, 2021.
  14. [Dong et al. , 2021] Hang Dong, V´ ıctor Su´ arez-Paniagua, William Whiteley, and Honghan Wu. Explainable automated coding of clinical notes using hierarchical labelwise attention networks and label embedding initialisation. Journal of Biomedical Informatics , 116:103728, 2021.
  15. [Doshi-Velez and Kim, 2017] Finale Doshi-Velez and Been Kim. Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.08608 , 2017. · arXiv
  16. [Ellenrieder et al. , 2023] Sara Ellenrieder, Emma Marlene Kallina, Luisa Pumplun, Joshua Felix Gawlitza, Sebastian Ziegelmayer, and Pete Buxmann. Promoting learning through explainable artificial intelligence: An experimental study in radiologyexperimental study in radiology. In Proceedings of International Conference on Information Systems , pages 1-17, 2023.
  17. [Figueroa and others, 2022] Karla C Figueroa et al. Interpretable deep learning approach for oral cancer classification using guided attention inference network. Journal of Biomedical Optics , 27(1), 2022.
  18. [Friedman, 2001] Jerome H Friedman. Greedy function approximation: a gradient boosting machine. Annals of statistics , pages 1189-1232, 2001.
  19. [Gaczek and others, 2023] Piotr Gaczek et al. Overcoming consumer resistance to ai in general health care. Journal of Interactive Marketing , 58(2-3):321-338, 2023.
  20. [Ghassemi et al. , 2021] Marzyeh Ghassemi, Luke OakdenRayner, and Andrew L Beam. The false hope of current approaches to explainable artificial intelligence in health care. The Lancet Digital Health , 3(11):e745-e750, 2021.
  21. [Goldstein et al. , 2013] Alex Goldstein, Adam Kapelner, Justin Bleich, and Emil Pitkin. Peeking inside the black box: Visualizing statistical learning with plots of individual conditional expectation. arXiv:1309.6392, 2013. Available at https://arxiv.org/abs/1309.6392. · arXiv
  22. [Gombolay et al. , 2024] Grace Y. Gombolay, Andrew Silva, Mariah Schrum, Nakul Gopalan, Jamika Hallman-Cooper, Monideep Dutt, and Matthew Gombolay. Effects of explainable artificial intelligence in neurology decision support. ANNALS OF CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL NEUROLOGY , 11(5):1224-1235, MAY 2024.
  23. [Greenes, 2014] Robert A Greenes. Clinical Decision Support: The Road Ahead . Academic Press, 2014.
  24. [Gunning and Aha, 2019] David Gunning and David W Aha. Darpa's explainable artificial intelligence (xai) program. AI Magazine , 40(2):44-58, 2019.
  25. [He et al. , 2024] Chen He, Vishnu Raj, Hans Moen, Tommi Gr¨ ohn, Chen Wang, Laura-Maria Peltonen, Saila Koivusalo, Pekka Marttinen, and Giulio Jacucci. Vms: Interactive visualization to support the sensemaking and selection of predictive models. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces , IUI '24', page 229-244, New York, NY, USA, 2024. Association for Computing Machinery.
  26. [Horsky et al. , 2012] Jan Horsky, Gordon D Schiff, Douglas Johnston, Lauren Mercincavage, Douglas Bell, and Blackford Middleton. Interface design principles for usable de- cision support: a targeted review of best practices for clinical prescribing interventions. Journal of Biomedical Informatics , 45(6):1202-1216, 2012.
  27. [Hwang et al. , 2022] Jeonghwan Hwang, Taeheon Lee, Honggu Lee, and Seonjeong Byun. A clinical decision support system for sleep staging tasks with explanations from artificial intelligence: user-centered design and evaluation study. Journal of Medical Internet Research , 24(1):e28659, 2022.
  28. [Jung et al. , 2025] Jinsun Jung, Sunghoon Kang, Jeeyae Choi, Robert El-Kareh, Hyungbok Lee, and Hyeoneui Kim. Evaluating the impact of explainable ai on clinicians' decision-making: A study on icu length of stay prediction. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INFORMATICS , 201, SEP 2025.
  29. [Kayadibi et al. , 2025] Ismail Kayadibi, Utku Kose, Gur Emre Guraksin, and Bilgun Cetin. An ai-assisted explainable mtmcnn architecture for detection of mandibular third molar presence from panoramic radiography. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INFORMATICS , 195, MAR 2025.
  30. [Khairat et al. , 2018] Saif Khairat, David Marc, William Crosby, Ali Al Sanousi, et al. Reasons for physicians not adopting clinical decision support systems: critical analysis. JMIR Medical Informatics , 6(2):e8912, 2018.
  31. [Kim and others, 2024] Y. Kim et al. Human-centered evaluation of xai applications: a systematic review. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence , 7:1456486, 2024.
  32. [Kohli and Jha, 2018] Ajay Kohli and Saurabh Jha. Why cad failed in mammography. Journal of the American College Radiology , 15(3 Pt B):535-537, 2018.
  33. [Kovalchuk et al. , 2022] Sergey V Kovalchuk, Georgy D Kopanitsa, Ilia V Derevitskii, Georgy A Matveev, and Daria A Savitskaya. Three-stage intelligent support of clinical decision making for higher trust, validity, and explainability. Journal of Biomedical Informatics , 127:104013, 2022.
  34. Panagiotis Papapetrou. Evaluating local interpretable model-agnostic explanations on clinical machine learning classification models. In 2020 IEEE 33rd International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems (CBMS) , pages 7-12. IEEE, 2020.
  35. [Ledley and Lusted, 1959] Robert S Ledley and Lee B Lusted. Reasoning foundations of medical diagnosis: symbolic logic, probability, and value theory aid our understanding of how physicians reason. Science , 130(3366):9-21, 1959.
  36. [Liao and Varshney, 2021] Q Vera Liao and Kush R Varshney. Human-centered explainable ai (xai): From algorithms to user experiences. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.10790 , 2021. · arXiv
  37. [Liao and Xiao, 2023] Q Vera Liao and Ziang Xiao. Rethinking model evaluation as narrowing the sociotechnical gap. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.03100 , 2023. · arXiv
  38. [Loh et al. , 2022] Hui Wen Loh, Chui Ping Ooi, Silvia Seoni, Prabal Datta Barua, Filippo Molinari, and U Rajendra Acharya. Application of explainable artificial intelligence for healthcare: A systematic review of the last decade (2011-2022). Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine , 226:107161, 2022.
  39. [Longoni et al. , 2019] Chiara Longoni, Andrea Bonezzi, and Carey K. Morewedge. Resistance to medical artificial intelligence. Journal of Consumer Research , 46(4):629650, 2019.
  40. [Lorenzini and others, 2023] Giorgia Lorenzini et al. Artificial intelligence and the doctor-patient relationship expanding the paradigm of shared decision making. Bioethics , 37(5):424-429, 2023.
  41. [Lundberg and Lee, 2017] Scott M Lundberg and Su-In Lee. A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. In I. Guyon, U. V. Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. Vishwanathan, and R. Garnett, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30 , pages 47654774. Curran Associates, Inc., 2017.
  42. [Matthiesen et al. , 2021] Stina Matthiesen, Søren Z¨ oga Diederichsen, Mikkel Klitzing Hartmann Hansen, and Christina et al. Villumsen. Clinician preimplementation perspectives of a decision-support tool for the prediction of cardiac arrhythmia based on machine learning: near-live feasibility and qualitative study. JMIR Human Factors , 8(4):e26964, 2021.
  43. [Molnar, 2022] Christoph Molnar. Interpretable Machine Learning . 2 edition, 2022.
  44. [Mothilal et al. , 2020] Ramaravind K. Mothilal, Amit Sharma, and Chenhao Tan. Explaining machine learning classifiers through diverse counterfactual explanations. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , FAT* '20, page 607-617, New York, NY, USA, 2020. Association for Computing Machinery.
  45. [Musen et al. , 2021] Mark A Musen, Blackford Middleton, and Robert A Greenes. Clinical decision-support systems. In Biomedical informatics: computer applications in health care and biomedicine , pages 795-840. Springer, 2021.
  46. [Nguyen and others, 2021] Sa Nguyen et al. Budget constrained machine learning for early prediction of adverse outcomes for covid-19 patients. Scientific Reports , 11(1):19543, 2021.
  47. [Pumplun et al. , 2023] Luisa Pumplun, Felix Peters, Joshua F Gawlitza, and Peter Buxmann. Bringing machine learning systems into clinical practice: a design science approach to explainable machine learningbased clinical decision support systems. Journal of the Association for Information Systems , 24(4):953-979, 2023.
  48. [Rajashekar et al. , 2024] Niroop Channa Rajashekar, Yeo Eun Shin, Yuan Pu, Sunny Chung, Kisung You, Mauro Giuffre, Colleen E Chan, Theo Saarinen, Allen Hsiao, Jasjeet Sekhon, et al. Human-algorithmic interaction using a large language model-augmented artificial intelligence clinical decision support system. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pages 1-20, 2024.
  49. [Ribeiro et al. , 2016] Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin. Why should i trust you? explaining the predictions of any classifier. In Proceedings of the
  50. 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , pages 1135-1144, 2016.
  51. [Ribeiro et al. , 2018] Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin. Anchors: High-precision modelagnostic explanations. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , volume 32, 2018.
  52. [Sabol et al. , 2020] Patrik Sabol, Peter Sinˇ c´ ak, Pitoyo Hartono, Pavel Koˇ can, Zuzana Benetinov´ a, Alˇ zbeta Blich´ arov´ a, L'udmila Verb´ oov´ a, Erika ˇ Stammov´ a, Ant´ onia Sabolov´ a-Fabianov´ a, and Anna Jaˇ skov´ a. Explainable classifier for improving the accountability in decision-making for colorectal cancer diagnosis from histopathological images. Journal of Biomedical Informatics , 109:103523, 2020.
  53. [Sahni et al. , 2023] Nikhil Sahni, George Stein, Rodney Zemmel, and David M Cutler. The potential impact of artificial intelligence on healthcare spending. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research Cambridge, MA, USA:, 2023.
  54. [Selvaraju et al. , 2017] Ramprasaath R Selvaraju, Michael Cogswell, Abhishek Das, Ramakrishna Vedantam, Devi Parikh, and Dhruv Batra. Grad-cam: Visual explanations from deep networks via gradient-based localization. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 618-626, 2017.
  55. [Sendak et al. , 2020] Mark Sendak, Madeleine Clare Elish, Michael Gao, Joseph Futoma, William Ratliff, Marshall Nichols, Armando Bedoya, Suresh Balu, and Cara O'Brien. ' the human body is a black box' supporting clinical decision-making with deep learning. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , pages 99-109, 2020.
  56. [Shapley, 1953] Lloyd S. Shapley. A value for n-person games. In H. W. Kuhn and A. W. Tucker, editors, Contributions to the Theory of Games, Vol. II , pages 307-317. Princeton University Press, 1953.
  57. [Shi and others, 2022] H Shi et al. Explainable machine learning model for predicting the occurrence of postoperative malnutrition in children with congenital heart disease. Clinical Nutrition , 41(1):202-210, 2022.
  58. [Shi et al. , 2021] Weiming Shi, Ling Tong, Yingjuan Zhu, and May D Wang. Covid-19 automatic diagnosis with radiographic imaging: explainable attention transfer deep neural networks. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics , 25(7):2376-2387, 2021.
  59. [Shortliffe and Sep´ ulveda, 2018] Edward H Shortliffe and Martin J Sep´ ulveda. Clinical decision support in the era of artificial intelligence. JAMA , 320(21):2199-2200, 2018.
  60. [Singh et al. , 2021] Amitojdeep Singh, Janarthanam Jothi Balaji, Mohammed Abdul Rasheed, Varadharajan Jayakumar, Rajiv Raman, and Vasudevan Lakshminarayanan. Evaluation of explainable deep learning methods for ophthalmic diagnosis. Clinical Ophthalmology , pages 2573-2581, 2021.
  61. [Sivaraman et al. , 2023] Venkatesh Sivaraman, Leigh A Bukowski, Joel Levin, Jeremy M Kahn, and Adam Perer. Ignore, trust, or negotiate: understanding clinician acceptance of ai-based treatment recommendations in health care. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pages 1-18, 2023.
  62. [Speith, 2022] Timo Speith. A review of taxonomies of explainable artificial intelligence (xai) methods. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , pages 2239-2250, 2022.
  63. [Sundararajan et al. , 2017] Mukund Sundararajan, Ankur Taly, and Qiqi Yan. Axiomatic attribution for deep networks. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 3319-3328. PMLR, 2017.
  64. [Thakoor et al. , 2021] Kiran A Thakoor, Sunil C Koorathota, Donald C Hood, and Paul Sajda. Robust and interpretable convolutional neural networks to detect glaucoma in optical coherence tomography images. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering , 68(8):2456-2466, 2021.
  65. [van de Poel, 2013] Ibo van de Poel. Translating values into design requirements. In Philosophy and Engineering: Reflections on Practice, Principles and Process , pages 253266. Springer, 2013.
  66. [Wears and Berg, 2005] Robert L Wears and Marc Berg. Computer technology and clinical work: still waiting for godot. Jama , 293(10):1261-1263, 2005.
  67. [Weir et al. , 2021] Charlene R Weir, Jonathan R Nebeker, Bret L Hicken, Reinaldo Campo, Frank Drews, and Brad Lebar. A cognitive task analysis of information management strategies in a computerized provider order entry environment. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association , 28(1):30-39, 2021.
  68. [Zeng and others, 2021] Xinlong Zeng et al. Explainable machine-learning predictions for complications after pediatric congenital heart surgery. Scientific Reports , 11(1):17244, 2021.
  69. [Zhang and others, 2021] Yong Zhang et al. An explainable supervised machine learning predictor of acute kidney injury after adult deceased donor liver transplantation. Journal of Translational Medicine , 19(1):321, 2021.
  70. [Zhang and Zhang, 2023] Jie Zhang and Zong-ming Zhang. Ethics and governance of trustworthy medical artificial intelligence. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making , 23(1):7, 2023.
  71. [Zhang et al. , 2024] Shao Zhang, Jianing Yu, Xuhai Xu, Changchang Yin, Yuxuan Lu, Bingsheng Yao, Melanie Tory, Lace M Padilla, Jeffrey Caterino, Ping Zhang, et al. Rethinking human-ai collaboration in complex medical decision making: A case study in sepsis diagnosis. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pages 1-18, 2024.
  72. [Zhou et al. , 2016] Bolei Zhou, Aditya Khosla, Agata Lapedriza, Aude Oliva, and Antonio Torralba. Learning deep features for discriminative localization. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 2921-2929, 2016.

Authors
Gambetti, A., Han, Q., Shen, H., & Soares, C.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2502.09849
arXiv
2502.09849
OpenAlex
W4407632401
Cited by
4
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 4
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
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 AI, clinical decision support systems, human-centered evaluation, clinician trust, cognitive load, SHAP, Grad-CAM, post-hoc explanation methods, human-computer interaction, clinical adoption barriers, diagnostic confidence

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