ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025
Trust, Trustworthiness, and the Future of Medical AI: Outcomes of an Interdisciplinary Expert Workshop.
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 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed.
- PREFER-IT: A transdisciplinary co-created framework to realise inclusive health AI.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Article
- Integrating Participatory Social Innovation Into Requirements Engineering for AI Health Care Solutions: Case Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Diagnostic accuracy and citation integrity of four large language models on otolaryngology vignettes.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026Article
- YOLO with Kolmogorov-Arnold networks and vision-language foundation models for interpretable object detection with trustworthy multimodal AI in computer vision perception.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Exploring Students' Perceptions and Usage of Artificial Intelligence in Supporting Mental Health: A Preliminary Study in Higher Education in Qatar.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Safety-Constrained Agentic AI for Autism Screening: A Multimodal, Clinician-Guided Architecture.Cureus · 2026Article
- Review
- A new era of precision diagnosis and treatment for lung cancer: artificial intelligence-driven multimodal data integration and clinical applications.Cell death & disease · 2026Review
- Medical AI across Data Regimes to Promote Proactive Health.Health data science · 2026Review
- The Effect of Enforcing Fairness on Reshaping Explanations in Machine Learning Models.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2026Article
- Beyond the algorithm: embedding ethics for trustworthy AI in radiology and oncology.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Between map and maze: reframing trust in healthcare AI.AI & society · 2026Review
- AI health literacy as a foundation for responsible AI in healthcare: a framework for trustworthy implementation.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- Stakeholder Criteria for Trust in Artificial Intelligence-Based Computer Perception Tools in Health Care: Qualitative Interview Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Factors Influencing Adoption of Large Language Models in Health Care: Multicenter Cross-Sectional Mixed Methods Observational Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Observational
- Ethical challenges in biomarker research and precision medicine - a qualitative study in dermatology.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Triadic relations in healthcare: surveying physicians' perspectives on generative AI integration and its role on empathy, the placebo effect and patient care.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Advances and challenges from pathological mechanisms to intelligent quantified diagnosis in diabetic optic neuropathy.Digital healthReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Trustworthiness has become a key concept for the ethical development and application of artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine. Various guidelines have formulated key principles, such as fairness, robustness, and explainability, as essential components to achieve trustworthy AI. However, conceptualizations of trustworthy AI often emphasize technical requirements and computational solutions, frequently overlooking broader aspects of fairness and potential biases. These include not only algorithmic bias but also human, institutional, social, and societal factors, which are critical to foster AI systems that are both ethically sound and socially responsible. This viewpoint article presents an interdisciplinary approach to analyzing trust in AI and trustworthy AI within the medical context, focusing on (1) social sciences and humanities conceptualizations and legal perspectives on trust and (2) their implications for trustworthy AI in health care. It focuses on real-world challenges in medicine that are often underrepresented in theoretical discussions to propose a more practice-oriented understanding. Insights were gathered from an interdisciplinary workshop with experts from various disciplines involved in the development and application of medical AI, particularly in oncological imaging and genomics, complemented by theoretical approaches related to trust in AI. Results emphasize that, beyond common issues of bias and fairness, knowledge and human involvement are essential for trustworthy AI. Stakeholder engagement throughout the AI life cycle emerged as crucial, supporting a human- and multicentered framework for trustworthy AI implementation. Findings emphasize that trust in medical AI depends on providing meaningful, user-oriented information and balancing knowledge with acceptable uncertainty. Experts highlighted the importance of confidence in the tool's functionality, specifically that it performs as expected. Trustworthiness was shown to be not a feature but rather a relational process, involving humans, their expertise, and the broader social or institutional contexts in which AI tools operate. Trust is dynamic, shaped by interactions among individuals, technologies, and institutions, and ultimately centers on people rather than tools alone. Tools are evaluated based on reliability and credibility, yet trust fundamentally relies on human connections. The article underscores the development of AI tools that are not only technically sound but also ethically robust and broadly accepted by end users, contributing to more effective and equitable AI-mediated health care. Findings highlight that building AI trustworthiness in health care requires a human-centered, multistakeholder approach with diverse and inclusive engagement. To promote equity, we recommend that AI development teams involve all relevant stakeholders at every stage of the AI lifecycle-from conception, technical development, clinical validation, and real-world deployment.
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.