Abstract
A central requirement for the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine is its explainability, i. e., the provision of addressee-oriented information about its functioning. This leads to the question of how socially adequate explainability can be designed. To identify evaluation factors, we interviewed healthcare stakeholders about two scenarios: diagnostics and documentation. The scenarios vary the influence that an AI system has on decision-making through the interaction design and the amount of data processed. We present key evaluation factors for explainability at the interactional and procedural levels. Explainability must not interfere situationally in the doctor-patient conversation and question the professional role. At the same time, explainability functionally legitimizes an AI system as a second opinion and is central to building trust. A virtual embodiment of the AI system is advantageous for language-based explanations
Reference26 articles.
1. Aminololama-Shakeri, Shadi; López, Javier (2019): The doctor-patient relationship with artificial intelligence. In: American Journal of Roentgenology 212 (2), S. 308–310. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.18.20509
2. Barredo-Arrieta, Alejandro et al. (2020): Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI). Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI. In: Information Fusion 58, S. 82–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2019.12.012
3. Barter, Christine; Renold, Emma (1999): The use of vignettes in qualitative research. In: Social Research Update 25. Online verfügbar unter https://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/SRU25.html, zuletzt geprüft am 11. 01. 2024.
4. Becker, Aliza (2019): Artificial intelligence in medicine. What is it doing for us today? In: Health Policy and Technology 8 (2), S. 198–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlpt.2019.03.004
5. Bossen, Claus; Pine, Kathleen (2023): Batman and Robin in healthcare knowledge work. Human-AI collaboration by clinical documentation integrity specialists. In: ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 30 (2), S. 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1145/3569892