ArticleJMIR formative research2026
Factors Associated With Professionals' Context-Specific Trust in AI-Based Screening for Autism Spectrum Disorder: Cross-Sectional Survey Study.
Article in JMIR formative research, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In clinical settings, clinicians' context-specific trust in AI is associated with individual factors. This is particularly relevant in autism spectrum disorder (ASD) screening, where diagnostic criteria are complex, heterogeneous, and inherently uncertain. Although some AI systems demonstrate high sensitivity, clinicians are not always convinced of their utility. Therefore, examining potential biases in context-specific trust and achieving well-calibrated trust are critical. Objective: This study aimed to examine the individual factors associated with professionals' context-specific trust in AI-assisted ASD screening systems. Methods: Fifty-five professionals involved in ASD assessment participated in the study. We used an AI-based ASD screening method based on a geometric shape-drawing task that assesses children's motor function and has demonstrated high sensitivity for identifying children with ASD. Expert clinicians selected 2 ambiguous screening scenarios for evaluation. Participants made independent judgments while considering the AI output and rated their context-specific trust in each decision on a 7-point Likert scale. A linear mixed model (LMM) examined the associations between context-specific trust in AI decisions and participant characteristics while accounting for the nested data structure. Results: LMM analysis revealed significant between-participant variability in context-specific trust. Years of professional experience ( Conclusions: Our findings suggest that more experienced clinicians tend to exhibit greater skepticism toward AI, consistent with observations in other medical fields such as oncology. To support the effective integration of AI into clinical practice, professional education should include training on AI principles and strategies for appropriate human-AI collaboration. Future studies with larger and more diverse samples, multimodal assessment approaches, and real-world clinical settings are needed to validate these findings and inform the implementation of AI-assisted ASD screening.
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.