REVIEW 1 cited by
Improving Health Professionals' Onboarding with AI and XAI for Trustworthy Human-AI Collaborative Decision Making
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
Improving Health Professionals' Onboarding with AI and XAI for Trustworthy Human-AI Collaborative Decision Making
read the original abstract
With advanced AI/ML, there has been growing research on explainable AI (XAI) and studies on how humans interact with AI and XAI for effective human-AI collaborative decision-making. However, we still have a lack of understanding of how AI systems and XAI should be first presented to users without technical backgrounds. In this paper, we present the findings of semi-structured interviews with health professionals (n=12) and students (n=4) majoring in medicine and health to study how to improve onboarding with AI and XAI. For the interviews, we built upon human-AI interaction guidelines to create onboarding materials of an AI system for stroke rehabilitation assessment and AI explanations and introduce them to the participants. Our findings reveal that beyond presenting traditional performance metrics on AI, participants desired benchmark information, the practical benefits of AI, and interaction trials to better contextualize AI performance, and refine the objectives and performance of AI. Based on these findings, we highlight directions for improving onboarding with AI and XAI and human-AI collaborative decision-making.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
RuleEdit: Failure-Guided Human-AI Model Editing with Prospective Impact Preview
Rule-guided mismatch cues raise Human+AI rehab-assessment accuracy by 14% and cut harmful reliance; prospective embedding previews raise local model-edit gains from 11.5% to 36%, with global transfer often regressing.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.