ArticleJournal of medical radiation sciences2026
Describe or Direct? Artificial Intelligence Explanation Type, Trust and User Behaviour in a Medical Imaging Rostering Task.
Article in Journal of medical radiation 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionArtificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly integrated into healthcare, with most healthcare AI applications concentrated in radiology. While explainable AI (XAI) has been proposed as a means of improving transparency and trust, the relationship between explanation features, trust and user behaviour remains underexplored, particularly in healthcare contexts. This study examined how final-year medical imaging students interacted with descriptive and prescriptive AI explanations during a simulated rostering task, with a focus on trust and user behaviour.
methodsA human-grounded evaluation using an explanatory mixed methods design was undertaken. Final year medical imaging students completed simulated rostering tasks using an XAI system that generated either descriptive or prescriptive explanations. Quantitative measures collected included task completion metrics, explanation regenerations and self-reported trust scores. Participants took part in semi-structured discussion groups to explore user perceptions, explanation preferences and trust dynamics.
resultsTrust scores increased across the experiment for both explanation types. Prescriptive explanations were associated with significantly fewer explanation regenerations and higher trust scores. Task time and failed solutions showed small-to-moderate effects favouring prescriptive explanations, but these differences did not reach statistical significance. Qualitative findings indicated a strong participant preference for prescriptive explanations, alongside critical engagement with inaccuracies and regeneration patterns.
conclusionPrescriptive AI explanations were preferred over descriptive explanations within a simulated medical imaging rostering task and were associated with higher trust and reduced explanation regeneration. Participants demonstrated critical engagement with AI-generated outputs rather than uncritical acceptance. These findings contribute to emerging evidence regarding human interaction with XAI systems in healthcare workflow settings.
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.