Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42191222›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2026

Explainability in context: calibrating appropriate trust and reliance in artificial intelligence.

Sharon E Davis, Megan E Salwei

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Sharon E DavisDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN 37203, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-0792-8867
Megan E SalweiDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN 37203, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-5457-2501

Funding

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) K01HS029042AHRQ HHS K01 HS029042AHRQ HHS K01HS029042
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and significancePredictive artificial intelligence (AI) promises to transform care delivery, enhance patient safety, and improve health outcomes. Realizing these benefits will require careful design, implementation, and monitoring strategies to avoid unintended consequences, including automation bias (i.e., erroneously favoring recommendations from automated systems). Automation bias is particularly concerning due to the variability of AI performance across time and populations, leading to predictions that may be variably incorrect, uncertain, or unfair. APPROACH: We advocate for an expanded view of explainable AI that uses contextual information to help end users calibrate appropriate levels of trust and reliance. We propose multiple levels of contextualization-model, setting, subpopulation, and patient-that together provide insight for clinicians to evaluate the reliability of individual predictions. This includes information about historical and in-the-moment AI performance, algorithmic fairness, and prediction uncertainty.

conclusionWe outline an approach to integrate context-based explanations into decision support workflows to aid clinician interpretation without adding cognitive burden.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceDecision Support Systems, ClinicalAutomationHumansTrustautomation biasdecision supportexplainable AI

Identifiers

PMID42191222
PMCPMC13385988

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.