Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41006498›Full record

ArticleNPJ digital medicine2025

Comparison of SHAP and clinician friendly explanations reveals effects on clinical decision behaviour.

Sujeong Hur, Yura Lee, Joongheum Park, Yeong Jeong Jeon, Jong Ho Cho, Duck Cho, Dobin Lim, Wonil Hwang, Won Chul Cha, Junsang Yoo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing 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

33 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. A multicenter study on the prediction model for chronic low back pain after lumbar decompression surgery in patients with diabetes mellitus: integration of metabolic and paraspinal muscle features.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

10 authors.

Sujeong Hur *Department of Digital Health, Samsung Advanced Institute for Health Sciences & Technology, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Yura Lee *Department of Information Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Joongheum ParkAvoMD, New York, NY, USA.
Yeong Jeong JeonDepartment of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Jong Ho ChoDepartment of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Duck ChoDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Genetics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Dobin LimDepartment of Industrial and Information Systems Engineering, Soongsil University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Wonil HwangDepartment of Industrial and Information Systems Engineering, Soongsil University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Won Chul ChaDepartment of Digital Health, Samsung Advanced Institute for Health Sciences & Technology, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Junsang YooDepartment of Digital Health, Samsung Advanced Institute for Health Sciences & Technology, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Republic of Korea. junnsang@skku.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2331-7644

Funding

Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea RS-2022-KH130250 and HI22C1719
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical decision-making substantially impacts patients' lives and their quality of life. However, the black-box nature of AI-powered clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) complicates the interpretation of how decisions are derived. Explainable AI (XAI) improves acceptance and trust with explanations, but the effectiveness of different methods remains uncertain. We compared the acceptance, trust, satisfaction and usability of various explanatory methods among clinicians. We also explored the factors associated with acceptance levels for each item using trust, satisfaction and usability score questionnaires. Surgeons and physicians (N = 63), who had prescribed blood products before surgery, made decisions before and after receiving one of three CDSS explanation methods, each comprising six vignettes, in a counterbalanced design. We found empirical evidence, which indicates that providing a clinical explanation enhances clinicians' acceptance than presenting 'results only' or 'results with SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP)'. Additionally, trust, satisfaction and usability were correlated with acceptance. This study suggests best practices for the strategic application of the XAI-CDSS in the medical field.

Identifiers

PMID41006498
PMCPMC12475050

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.