ArticleHeliyon2024
Expectation management in AI: A framework for understanding stakeholder trust and acceptance of artificial intelligence systems.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Improving Explainability and Integrability of Medical AI to Promote Health Care Professional Acceptance and Use: Mixed Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Between map and maze: reframing trust in healthcare AI.AI & society · 2026Review
- Article
- Enhancing Ophthalmic Diagnosis and Treatment with Artificial Intelligence.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- Cutting through the hype: the true economic impact and ROI of AI in radiology.European radiology · 2024Article
- Use of Artificial Intelligence tools in supporting decision-making in hospital management.BMC health services research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As artificial intelligence systems gain traction, their trustworthiness becomes paramount to harness their benefits and mitigate risks. This study underscores the pressing need for an expectation management framework to align stakeholder anticipations before any system-related activities, such as data collection, modeling, or implementation. To this end, we introduce a comprehensive framework tailored to capture end-user expectations specifically for trustworthy artificial intelligence systems. To ensure its relevance and robustness, we validated the framework via semi-structured interviews, encompassing questions rooted in the framework's constructs and principles. These interviews engaged fourteen diverse end users across the healthcare and education sectors, including physicians, teachers, and students. Through a meticulous qualitative analysis of the interview transcripts, we unearthed pivotal themes and discerned varying perspectives among the interviewee groups. Ultimately, our framework stands as a pivotal tool, paving the way for in-depth discussions about user expectations, illuminating the significance of various system attributes, and spotlighting potential challenges that might jeopardize the system's efficacy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.