Abstract
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 primarilyepistemicin 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.
Funder
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Subject
Health Policy,Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous),Issues, ethics and legal aspects,Health (social science)
Reference44 articles.
1. Laying down Harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (artificial intelligence act) and amending certain Union legislative acts. 2021.
2. Towards a standard for identifying and managing bias in artificial intelligence;Schwartz;NIST Special Publication,2022
3. Council US-ETaT . TTC joint roadmap on evaluation and measurement tools for trustworthy AI and risk management. 2022.
4. Varshney KR . Trustworthy machine learning. Chappaqua, NY, 2021.
5. Ajzen I , Fishbein M . Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. NJ: Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, 1980.