ArticleJMIR human factors2025
An Explainable AI Application (AF'fective) to Support Monitoring of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation After Catheter Ablation: Qualitative Focus Group, Design Session, and Interview Study.
Article in JMIR human factors, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the appropriateness and safety of generative AI in delivering lifestyle guidance for atrial fibrillation patients.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Systematic Review of Artificial Intelligence and Electrocardiography for Cardiovascular Disease Diagnosis.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Cardiovascular Imaging: Current Landscape, Clinical Impact, and Future Directions.Discoveries (Craiova, Romania)Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe opaque nature of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms has led to distrust in medical contexts, particularly in the treatment and monitoring of atrial fibrillation. Although previous studies in explainable AI have demonstrated potential to address this issue, they often focus solely on electrocardiography graphs and lack real-world field insights.
objectiveWe addressed this gap by incorporating standardized clinical interpretation of electrocardiography graphs into the system and collaborating with cardiologists to co-design and evaluate this approach using real-world patient cases and data.
methodsWe conducted a 3-stage iterative design process with 23 cardiologists to co-design, evaluate, and pilot an explainable AI application. In the first stage, we identified 4 physician personas and 7 explainability strategies, which were reviewed in the second stage. A total of 4 strategies were deemed highly effective and feasible for pilot deployment. On the basis of these strategies, we developed a progressive web application and tested it with cardiologists in the third stage.
resultsThe final progressive web application prototype received above-average user experience evaluations and effectively motivated physicians to adopt it owing to its ease of use, reliable information, and explainable functionality. In addition, we gathered in-depth field insights from cardiologists who used the system in clinical contexts.
conclusionsOur study identified effective explainability strategies, emphasized the importance of curating actionable features and setting accurate expectations, and suggested that many of these insights could apply to other disease care contexts, paving the way for future real-world clinical evaluations.
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.