Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Clinicians' Voice: Fundamental Considerations for XAI in Healthcare

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2411.04855 v3 pith:LERRNHFV submitted 2024-11-07 cs.LG

classification cs.LG
keywords clinicianshealthcaretoolsai-basedconcernsidentifypracticewill
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Explainable AI (XAI) holds the promise of advancing the implementation and adoption of AI-based tools in practice, especially in high-stakes environments like healthcare. However, most of the current research lacks input from end users, and therefore their practical value is limited. To address this, we conducted semi-structured interviews with clinicians to discuss their thoughts, hopes, and concerns. Clinicians from our sample generally think positively about developing AI-based tools for clinical practice, but they have concerns about how these will fit into their workflow and how it will impact clinician-patient relations. We further identify training of clinicians on AI as a crucial factor for the success of AI in healthcare and highlight aspects clinicians are looking for in (X)AI-based tools. In contrast to other studies, we take on a holistic and exploratory perspective to identify general requirements for (X)AI products for healthcare before moving on to testing specific tools.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Visual-Conversational Interface for Evidence-Based Explanation of Diabetes Risk Prediction

    cs.HC 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A visual-conversational diabetes risk tool grounded in scientific evidence was rated by 30 healthcare professionals as improving understanding and calibrating trust.

  2. Artificial Intelligence Should Genuinely Support Clinical Reasoning and Decision Making To Bridge the Translational Gap

    cs.HC 2025-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    A Perspective arguing that clinical AI should be reframed as cognitive and epistemic support for clinicians, not as autonomous predictors.

Pith tools