ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025
Finding Consensus on Trust in AI in Health Care: Recommendations From a Panel of International Experts.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
26 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- "First, do no harm" in the digital era: examining the practicality of the European Health Data Space proposal and ethical implications of artificial intelligence: A systematic literature review.BMC medical ethics · 2026Pooled it
- Stakeholder experience with artificial intelligence in healthcare: a bibliometric study of satisfaction, trust, acceptance, and patient engagement.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Pooled it
- Opportunities and challenges of artificial intelligence in public health: a systematic review on technological efficacy, ethical dilemmas, and governance pathways.Frontiers in public health · 2025Pooled it
- Intersectionality in AI and Machine Learning for Health Care: Protocol for a Scoping Review.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Application, challenges and prospects of artificial intelligence in acute poisoning management.World journal of emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Novelty to necessity: large language models in clinical practice-a call to action for physicians.Internal and emergency medicine · 2026Review
- Development of research ethics guidelines for healthcare generative artificial intelligence: deriving expert consensus through a Delphi study.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Governing Generative AI in Healthcare: A Normative Conceptual Framework for Epistemic Authority, Trust, and the Architecture of Responsibility.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Trust Analysis Canvas for Teaching in the Field of Digital Public Health and Medicine: Tutorial.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- Explainability in AI-enabled medical neurotechnology: a scoping review.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Factors Influencing Adoption of Large Language Models in Health Care: Multicenter Cross-Sectional Mixed Methods Observational Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Observational
- Performance of Retrieval-Augmented Generation Large Language Models in Guideline-Concordant Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing: Comparative Study With Junior Clinicians.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Trust is all you Need: Reinforcing the Patient-physician Bond in Times of AI.Journal of medical systems · 2025Article
- Advocating for trust in and trustworthy AI to transform evidence synthesis.Environmental evidence · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence Applications in Emergency Toxicology: Advancements and Challenges.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Review
- Integration of artificial intelligence in nursing education: a cross-national exploration.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- AI, neurotechnology and society - a question of trust.Nature reviews. Neurology · 2025Article
- Article
- Global, regional, and national burden of cardiovascular diseases attributable to high body mass index from 1990 to 2021.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Trust Performance Indicators and Trust Stress Tests: A Conceptual Proposition for Trustworthy Health Data Spaces.International journal of public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into health care has become a crucial element in the digital transformation of health systems worldwide. Despite the potential benefits across diverse medical domains, a significant barrier to the successful adoption of AI systems in health care applications remains the prevailing low user trust in these technologies. Crucially, this challenge is exacerbated by the lack of consensus among experts from different disciplines on the definition of trust in AI within the health care sector.
objectiveWe aimed to provide the first consensus-based analysis of trust in AI in health care based on an interdisciplinary panel of experts from different domains. Our findings can be used to address the problem of defining trust in AI in health care applications, fostering the discussion of concrete real-world health care scenarios in which humans interact with AI systems explicitly.
methodsWe used a combination of framework analysis and a 3-step consensus process involving 18 international experts from the fields of computer science, medicine, philosophy of technology, ethics, and social sciences. Our process consisted of a synchronous phase during an expert workshop where we discussed the notion of trust in AI in health care applications, defined an initial framework of important elements of trust to guide our analysis, and agreed on 5 case studies. This was followed by a 2-step iterative, asynchronous process in which the authors further developed, discussed, and refined notions of trust with respect to these specific cases.
resultsOur consensus process identified key contextual factors of trust, namely, an AI system's environment, the actors involved, and framing factors, and analyzed causes and effects of trust in AI in health care. Our findings revealed that certain factors were applicable across all discussed cases yet also pointed to the need for a fine-grained, multidisciplinary analysis bridging human-centered and technology-centered approaches. While regulatory boundaries and technological design features are critical to successful AI implementation in health care, ultimately, communication and positive lived experiences with AI systems will be at the forefront of user trust. Our expert consensus allowed us to formulate concrete recommendations for future research on trust in AI in health care applications.
conclusionsThis paper advocates for a more refined and nuanced conceptual understanding of trust in the context of AI in health care. By synthesizing insights into commonalities and differences among specific case studies, this paper establishes a foundational basis for future debates and discussions on trusting AI in health care.
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.