ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025
Evaluation of a Deep Learning and XAI based Facial Phenotyping Tool for Genetic Syndromes: A Clinical User Study.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Which explainable AI methods in medical imaging are clinically impactful? A systematic literature review addressing the clinician's perspective.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Pooled it
- The Design-Driven Innovation Path of Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence in the Field of Healthcare: Theory, Practice, and Future Prospects.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) tools are increasingly employed in clinical genetics to assist in diagnosing genetic conditions by assessing photographs of patients. For medical uses of AI, explainable AI (XAI) methods offer a promising approach by providing interpretable outputs, such as saliency maps and region relevance visualizations. XAI has been discussed as important for regulatory purposes and to enable clinicians to better understand how AI tools work in practice. However, the real-world effects of XAI on clinician performance, confidence, and trust remain underexplored. This study involved a web-based user experiment with 31 medical geneticists to assess the impact of AI-only diagnostic assistance compared to XAI-supported diagnostics. Participants were randomly assigned to either group and completed diagnostic tasks with 18 facial images of individuals with known genetic syndromes and unaffected individuals, before and after experiencing the AI outputs. The results show that both AI-only and XAI approaches improved diagnostic accuracy and clinician confidence. The effects varied according to the accuracy of AI predictions and the clarity of syndromic features (sample difficulty). While AI support was viewed positively, users approached XAI with skepticism. Interestingly, we found a positive correlation between diagnostic improvement and XAI intervention. Although XAI support did not significantly enhance overall performance relative to AI alone, it prompted users to critically evaluate images with false predictions and influenced their confidence levels. These findings highlight the complexities of trust, perceived usefulness, and interpretability in AI-assisted diagnostics, with important implications for developing and implementing clinical decision-support tools in facial phenotyping for rare genetic diseases.
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.