Trial reportAnnals of clinical and translational neurology2024
Effects of explainable artificial intelligence in neurology decision support.
Trial report in Annals of clinical and translational neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Real-Time Artificial Intelligence Diagnostic Copilot in Simulated Primary Care Consultations: Randomized Simulation Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Trial
- Human-Centered design requirements for clinical decision support in cardiac surgery perfusion.Human factors in healthcare · 2026Article
- Deep Learning-Based Multi-Cancer Analysis for Predicting Disease-Free Survival Across Multiple Cancer Types.Cancers · 2026Article
- Factors influencing the effectiveness of artificial intelligence-assisted decision-making in medicine: a scoping review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026Article
- A comprehensive review of explainable artificial intelligence in healthcare methods, evaluation, and clinical integration.iScience · 2026Review
- Explainability in AI-enabled medical neurotechnology: a scoping review.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Factors Influencing the Effectiveness of AI-Assisted Decision-Making in Medicine: A Scoping Review.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- A Multi-Omics Integration Framework with Automated Machine Learning Identifies Peripheral Immune-Coagulation Biomarkers for Schizophrenia Risk Stratification.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Writing the Future: Artificial Intelligence, Handwriting, and Early Biomarkers for Parkinson's Disease Diagnosis and Monitoring.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Machine learning in healthcare citizen science: A scoping review.International journal of medical informatics · 2025Article
- Towards reconciling usability and usefulness of policy explanations for sequential decision-making systems.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveArtificial intelligence (AI)-based decision support systems (DSS) are utilized in medicine but underlying decision-making processes are usually unknown. Explainable AI (xAI) techniques provide insight into DSS, but little is known on how to design xAI for clinicians. Here we investigate the impact of various xAI techniques on a clinician's interaction with an AI-based DSS in decision-making tasks as compared to a general population.
methodsWe conducted a randomized, blinded study in which members of the Child Neurology Society and American Academy of Neurology were compared to a general population. Participants received recommendations from a DSS via a random assignment of an xAI intervention (decision tree, crowd sourced agreement, case-based reasoning, probability scores, counterfactual reasoning, feature importance, templated language, and no explanations). Primary outcomes included test performance and perceived explainability, trust, and social competence of the DSS. Secondary outcomes included compliance, understandability, and agreement per question.
resultsWe had 81 neurology participants with 284 in the general population. Decision trees were perceived as the more explainable by the medical versus general population (P < 0.01) and as more explainable than probability scores within the medical population (P < 0.001). Increasing neurology experience and perceived explainability degraded performance (P = 0.0214). Performance was not predicted by xAI method but by perceived explainability.
interpretationxAI methods have different impacts on a medical versus general population; thus, xAI is not uniformly beneficial, and there is no one-size-fits-all approach. Further user-centered xAI research targeting clinicians and to develop personalized DSS for clinicians is needed.
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.