Journal
JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS
Volume -, Issue -, Pages -Publisher
BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jme-2023-109338
Keywords
Decision Making; Ethics- Research; Quality of Health Care
Ask authors/readers for more resources
In the healthcare field, trust in artificial intelligence and machine learning systems is crucial for decision-making. A study reveals that both physicians and patients consider accuracy and validity as important factors for trust. Additionally, trust is also influenced by the nature and explainability of the training data, as well as endorsement from others and personal beliefs and experience.
Rapid advancements in artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) in healthcare raise pressing questions about how much users should trust AI/ML systems, particularly for high stakes clinical decision-making. Ensuring that user trust is properly calibrated to a tool's computational capacities and limitations has both practical and ethical implications, given that overtrust or undertrust can influence over-reliance or under-reliance on algorithmic tools, with significant implications for patient safety and health outcomes. It is, thus, important to better understand how variability in trust criteria across stakeholders, settings, tools and use cases may influence approaches to using AI/ML tools in real settings. As part of a 5-year, multi-institutional Agency for Health Care Research and Quality-funded study, we identify trust criteria for a survival prediction algorithm intended to support clinical decision-making for left ventricular assist device therapy, using semistructured interviews (n=40) with patients and physicians, analysed via thematic analysis. Findings suggest that physicians and patients share similar empirical considerations for trust, which were primarily epistemic in nature, focused on accuracy and validity of AI/ML estimates. Trust evaluations considered the nature, integrity and relevance of training data rather than the computational nature of algorithms themselves, suggesting a need to distinguish 'source' from 'functional' explainability. To a lesser extent, trust criteria were also relational (endorsement from others) and sometimes based on personal beliefs and experience. We discuss implications for promoting appropriate and responsible trust calibration for clinical decision-making use AI/ML.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available