ArticleJAMIA open2026
Cognitive readiness of nurses regarding artificial intelligence predictions: understanding through the dual lens of verbatim and gist knowledge.
Article in JAMIA open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Objectives: The expansion of artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled clinical decision support (CDS) requires nurses to interpret complex model outputs. However, their cognitive readiness remains underexplored, particularly in terms of their understanding of statistics. To assess nurses' understanding of key statistical concepts underlying AI predictions and their relationship to health numeracy. Materials and Methods: An organizational approach study involving 180 nurses from 6 medical-surgical units at a tertiary hospital, preparing to implement an AI fall-prediction model. Statistical knowledge was evaluated using a heuristic vignette based on fuzzy-trace theory, assessing both verbatim (literal) and gist (meaning-based) understanding of sensitivity, specificity, and CIs. Health numeracy was measured using the Lipkus Objective Numeracy Scale, Numeracy Understanding in Medicine Instrument: short form, and Subjective Numeracy Scale. Analyses included ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, with thematic analyses applied to the qualitative concerns of nurses. Results: Overall statistical knowledge was moderate (mean = 85.56, 95% CI, 82.64-88.46). Gist knowledge lagged verbatim knowledge, especially about CIs. Nurses with advanced degrees had higher verbatim scores ( Conclusion: Despite displaying adequate numeracy, nurses' conceptual grasp of statistical concepts may hinder the safe application of AI CDS system outputs. These findings underscore the need for targeted education and a cognitive-fit-driven interface design to support the trustworthy use of AI in nursing practice.
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.