Comparison of SHAP and clinician friendly explanations reveals effects on clinical decision behaviour.

Authors

Sujeong Hur, Yura Lee, Joongheum Park, Yeong Jeong Jeon, Jong Ho Cho, Duck Cho, Dobin Lim, Wonil Hwang, Won Chul Cha, Junsang Yoo

Published in

NPJ digital medicine. Volume 8. Issue 1. Pages 578. Sep 26, 2025. Epub Sep 26, 2025.

Abstract

Clinical decision-making substantially impacts patients' lives and their quality of life. However, the black-box nature of AI-powered clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) complicates the interpretation of how decisions are derived. Explainable AI (XAI) improves acceptance and trust with explanations, but the effectiveness of different methods remains uncertain. We compared the acceptance, trust, satisfaction and usability of various explanatory methods among clinicians. We also explored the factors associated with acceptance levels for each item using trust, satisfaction and usability score questionnaires. Surgeons and physicians (N = 63), who had prescribed blood products before surgery, made decisions before and after receiving one of three CDSS explanation methods, each comprising six vignettes, in a counterbalanced design. We found empirical evidence, which indicates that providing a clinical explanation enhances clinicians' acceptance than presenting 'results only' or 'results with SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP)'. Additionally, trust, satisfaction and usability were correlated with acceptance. This study suggests best practices for the strategic application of the XAI-CDSS in the medical field.

PMID:
41006498
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 27 Sep 2025.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Stats

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.