ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2026
Harnessing discrete choice experiments to elicit preferred configurations of trustworthy AI augmented decision support systems for certified crop advisors.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The increase in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and sensor data driven Precision Agriculture (PA) technologies show promise to improve efficiencies in agricultural production systems and decrease adverse impacts of agriculture on environment compared to traditional approaches. Yet, complex trade-offs (e.g. cost, accuracy, precision and data ownership) in the design and configuration of trustworthy AI augmented decision support systems (AI-DSS) for advancing responsible and ethical PA have surfaced. This study harnesses Discrete Choice Experiments (DCEs) to elicit stated preferences of Certified Crop Advisors (CCAs) for informing the design and configurations of trustworthy AI-DSS. The research is guided by two questions and eight associated hypotheses: (a) How do cost, accuracy, precision, and data ownership influence the preferences of CCAs for adopting AI-DSS in agriculture? (b) Which AI perceptions, PA technology concerns and prior DSS experience predict the adoption of AI-DSS configurations?. Methods: Six focus groups informed the design of the choice set, comparing low, medium and high cost AI-DSS with varying accuracy, precision and data ownership attributes. The survey was circulated by Crop Science Society of America to ~2600 CCAs with a lottery-based incentive, leading to 771 responses (response rate = 29.65%). The DCE data were analyzed using a Standard (McFadden) Logit Model, and a Random Utility Mixed Logit Model. Results: Analysis showed 25.54% of the participants opted out, and 45.36%, 19.23%, 9.85% prefer low, medium and high-cost AI-DSS, respectively. Marginal improvement of 1% accuracy leads to ~4% ( Discussion: AI perceptions, PA technology concerns and prior DSS experience significantly predict the variability in the adoption of three types of AI-DSS.
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.