Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39969962›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025

Finding Consensus on Trust in AI in Health Care: Recommendations From a Panel of International Experts.

Georg Starke, Felix Gille, Alberto Termine, Yves Saint James Aquino, Ricardo Chavarriaga, Andrea Ferrario, Janna Hastings, Karin Jongsma, Philipp Kellmeyer, Bogdan Kulynych and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Explainability in AI-enabled medical neurotechnology: a scoping review.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors.

Georg StarkeInstitute for History and Ethics of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7428-2619
Felix GilleDigital Society Initiative, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-2847-4633
Alberto TermineInstitute for History and Ethics of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5993-0948
Yves Saint James AquinoAustralian Centre for Health Engagement, Evidence and Values, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0981-0029
Ricardo ChavarriagaCentre for Artificial Intelligence, Zurich University of Applied Sciences (ZHAW), Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-8879-2860
Andrea FerrarioInstitute of Biomedical Ethics and History of Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-9968-9474
Janna HastingsInstitute for Implementation Science in Health Care, Faculty of Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-3469-4923
Karin JongsmaBioethics & Health Humanities, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8135-6786
Philipp KellmeyerData and Web Science Group, School of Business Informatics and Mathematics, University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5538-373X
Bogdan KulynychLausanne University Hospital (CHUV), Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-5923-3931
Emily PostanEdinburgh Law School, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6705-0921
Elise RacineThe Ethox Centre and Wellcome Centre for Ethics and Humanities, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-5145-7690
Derya SahinDevelopment Economics (DEC), World Bank Group, Washington, DC, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-0573-0526
Paulina TomaszewskaFaculty of Mathematics and Information Science, Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, Poland.ORCID 0000-0001-6767-1018
Karina VoldInstitute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0768-7517
Jamie WebbThe Centre for Technomoral Futures, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6282-6487
Alessandro FacchiniDalle Molle Institute for Artificial Intelligence (IDSIA), The University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Southern Switzerland (SUPSI), Lugano, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-7507-116X
Marcello IencaInstitute for History and Ethics of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8835-5444

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Artificial IntelligenceDelivery of Health CareTrustConsensusConsensus Statements as TopicHumansartificial intelligenceassistive technologiesclinical decision supportexpert consensusframework analysispublic health surveillancetrust

Identifiers

PMID39969962
PMCPMC11888049

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.