ArticleJMIR human factors2025
Framing the Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence Concepts and Methods: Scoping Review.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Design-Driven Innovation Path of Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence in the Field of Healthcare: Theory, Practice, and Future Prospects.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Conditional Acceptance and the Optimism-Knowledge Gap: A Scoping Review of Attitudes and Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare in Italy.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The Development of a Web-Based Application to Support Informal Caregivers of Individuals With Head and Neck Cancer: Human-Centered Design Approach.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- Enhancing trustworthiness in model-guided medicine with a model identity certificate (MIC): starting with interventional disciplines.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2025Article
- Healthcare Professionals' perspectives on AI-driven decision support in young adult mental health: an analysis through the lens of a shared decision-making framework.Frontiers in digital 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: With the rapid expansion of artificial intelligence (AI) applications, researchers have begun focusing on the concept of human-centered artificial intelligence (HCAI). This field is dedicated to designing AI systems that augment and improve human abilities, rather than substituting them. Objective: The objective of the paper was to review the information on design principles, techniques, applications, methods, and outcomes adopted in the field of HCAI, in order to provide some insights on the discipline, in relation with the broader concepts of human-centered and user-centered design. Methods: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist guidelines, we conducted a scoping review in PubMed, ScienceDirect, and IEEE Xplore, including all study types, excluding narrative reviews and editorials. Results: Out of the 1035 studies retrieved, 14 studies conducted between 2018 and 2023 met the inclusion criteria. The main fields of application were the health sector and AI applications. Human-centered design methodologies were adopted in 3 studies, personas in 2 studies, while the remaining methodologies were adopted in individual studies. Conclusions: HCAI emphasizes designing AI systems that prioritize human needs, satisfaction, and trustworthiness, but current principles and guidelines are often vague and difficult to implement. The review highlights the importance of involving users early in the development process to enhance trust, especially in fields like health care, but notes that there is a lack of standardized HCAI methodologies and limited practical applications adhering to these principles.
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.