Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40455564›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025

Trust, Trustworthiness, and the Future of Medical AI: Outcomes of an Interdisciplinary Expert Workshop.

Melanie Goisauf, Mónica Cano Abadía, Kaya Akyüz, Maciej Bobowicz, Alena Buyx, Ilaria Colussi, Marie-Christine Fritzsche, Karim Lekadir, Pekka Marttinen, Michaela Th Mayrhofer and 1 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 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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 · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. 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 · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
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

11 authors.

Melanie Goisauf *Department of ELSI Services and Research, Biobanking and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure Consortium, Graz, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3909-8071
Mónica Cano Abadía *Department of ELSI Services and Research, Biobanking and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure Consortium, Graz, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7726-9222
Kaya Akyüz *Department of ELSI Services and Research, Biobanking and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure Consortium, Graz, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2444-2095
Maciej Bobowicz *2nd Department of Radiology, Gdańsk Medical University, Gdansk, Poland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3608-1960
Alena Buyx *Institute of History and Ethics in Medicine, TUM School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5726-7633
Ilaria Colussi *Department of ELSI Services and Research, Biobanking and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure Consortium, Graz, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1250-114X
Marie-Christine Fritzsche *Institute of History and Ethics in Medicine, TUM School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8056-2462
Karim Lekadir *Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats (ICREA), Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9456-1612
Pekka Marttinen *Department of Computer Science, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7078-7927
Michaela Th Mayrhofer *Department of ELSI Services and Research, Biobanking and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure Consortium, Graz, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6932-0473
Janos Meszaros *Division of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2899-4268

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Artificial IntelligenceTrustHumansartificial intelligenceethics of AIhuman-centered AIinterdisciplinaritymedicinestakeholder engagementtrusttrustworthy AI

Identifiers

PMID40455564
PMCPMC12171647

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.