ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2026
How Best to Explain Machine Learning Models to Clinicians: A User Study of Explanation Types.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Explanations play a crucial role in helping clinicians understand how black-box machine learning models make predictions in clinical settings. Several different types of explanations have been developed, each corresponding to a unique approach for characterizing the relationships between model inputs and predictions. However, it remains unclear what types of explanations are the most valued by clinicians. Objective: To improve the utility of machine learning in clinical settings, we aimed to evaluate how different explanation methods are valued by clinicians across clinically important metrics, such as importance, trust, understanding, and how explanations affect clinicians' thinking about patients. Methods: We conducted a user study of 39 critical care and hospital medicine nurses and physicians to compare attribution, counterfactual, and rule-based explanations. We analyzed the impact of each type of explanation on clinicians' trust in and understanding of the predictions made by machine learning models, how well clinicians understood the explanation, and how the explanation affected what they thought were the most important features for determining patients' status. We also assessed clinicians' preferences for the representation of different types of explanations. Results: Clinicians consider explanations of clinical machine learning models important, with physicians perceiving explanations as more important after interacting with them than nurses. All explanation types affected clinicians across all measured dimensions, with attribution explanations having the most significant positive effects on all measured dimensions. Moreover, nearly half of clinicians preferred viewing multiple explanation types together. Conclusions: It is important to provide explanations for predictions made by machine learning models in clinical settings. When implementing machine learning explanations in these settings, developers should prioritize attribution explanations while allowing for multiple types of explanations to be shown. Furthermore, the development of new explanation methods should be tailored towards specific clinical roles, as nurses and physicians may utilize explanations differently to support their respective workflows.
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.