Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42204349›Full record

ReviewMolecular systems biology2026

Toward trustworthy healthcare AI: designing academic research for translation readiness.

Achim Hekler, Florian Buettner

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Molecular systems biology, 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.

Achim HeklerInstitute of Informatics, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. achim.hekler@dkfz-heidelberg.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-4567-0907
Florian BuettnerInstitute of Informatics, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. florian.buettner@dkfz-heidelberg.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5587-6761

Funding

EC | European Research Council (ERC) TAIPO, 101088594
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In controlled proof-of-concept studies, healthcare artificial intelligence (AI) systems now routinely match or exceed specialist-level performance. Despite these impressive technical achievements, most systems remain confined to research settings, highlighting an opportunity to better prepare academic AI research for subsequent clinical translation. Successful translation requires attention to technical, regulatory, organizational, and infrastructural factors, ideally from the earliest stages of research. This Perspective focuses on trustworthiness as a key factor that academic researchers can address proactively. First, we outline how trustworthiness requirements differ across three stakeholder groups-patients, clinicians, and regulatory bodies-and how academic research can better align with these expectations. We then discuss key dimensions of trustworthy AI-explainability, uncertainty quantification, and evaluation-and how researchers can address them during study design. We also consider foundation models, which require adapted validation approaches. Based on this analysis, we propose a stakeholder-centered framework that emphasizes proactive integration of trust requirements during early development phases rather than post hoc considerations.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceDelivery of Health CareTranslational Research, BiomedicalAcademiaHumansResearch DesignTrust

Identifiers

PMID42204349
PMCPMC13434723

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.