ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025
The Right to Explanation in AI: In a Lonely Place.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Technology is increasingly being used in decision-making in all fields, particularly in health care. Automated decision-making promises to change medical practice and potentially improve and streamline the provision of health care. Although the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into medicine is encouraging, it is also accompanied by fears concerning transparency and accountability. This is where the right to explanation has come in. Legislators and policymakers have relied on the right to explanation, a new right guaranteed to those who are affected by automated decision-making, to ease fears surrounding AI. This is particularly apparent in the province of Quebec in Canada, where legislators recently passed Law 5, an act respecting health and social services information and amending various legislative provisions. This paper explores the practical implications of Law 5, and by extension of the right to explanation internationally, in the health care field. We highlight that the right to explanation is anticipated to alter physicians' obligation to patients, namely the duty to inform. We also discuss how the drafting of the legislation on the right to explanation is vague and hard to enforce. This dilutes the potential of the right to explanation to provide meaningful protections for those affected by automated decisions. After all, AI is a complex and innovative technology and, as such, requires complex and innovative policies. The right to explanation is not necessarily the answer.
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.