ArticleScientific reports2026
Safety design guidelines for clinician-AI interaction in computer-aided diagnosis systems using system-theoretic framework with explainability validation.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
Ensuring the safety of Artificial Intelligence-enabled Computer-Aided Diagnosis systems is critical because diagnostic errors can have serious consequences for patient care. However, existing regulatory and risk management frameworks often do not sufficiently address the complex socio-technical interactions between clinicians and Artificial Intelligent systems, leaving key human-centered safety challenges underexplored. This paper presents a systematic and human-centered approach to deriving safety design guidelines for clinician-Artificial Intelligence interaction in Computer-Aided Diagnosis systems using System-Theoretic Process Analysis. Through this analysis, we identify critical hazards associated with clinician-Artificial Intelligence collaboration, including automation bias on system recommendations, and misinterpretation of explanations. Based on the identified unsafe control actions, we formulate a set of actionable and traceable safety design guidelines that promote transparency, coherent explanations, and calibrated trust in Artificial Intelligence-assisted decision-making. To bridge safety analysis and system design, the proposed guidelines are operationalized within a Computer-Aided Diagnosis interaction framework. The framework includes a safety-oriented Graphical User Interface that integrates multiple explanation methods and interactive mechanisms to promote clinician engagement. Furthermore, we introduce a safety-oriented evaluation approach that uses consistency across multiple explanation methods as a quantitative indicator of potentially unreliable or ambiguous explanations. By linking System-Theoretic Process Analysis, interaction design, and explainability evaluation, this work provides a unified and reusable framework for improving the safety and reliability of Artificial Intelligence-driven Computer-Aided Diagnosis systems.
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.