Beatrice Bridge, Ahmed Y Alasmar, Lauren Gunn-Sandell, Regina M Fink, Stacy M Fischer, Elizabeth Juarez-Colunga, Eric G Campbell, Matthew DeCamp
{"title":"\"Black box\" artificial intelligence for mortality prediction: a mixed-methods study of palliative care team, patient, and caregiver perspectives.","authors":"Beatrice Bridge, Ahmed Y Alasmar, Lauren Gunn-Sandell, Regina M Fink, Stacy M Fischer, Elizabeth Juarez-Colunga, Eric G Campbell, Matthew DeCamp","doi":"10.21037/apm-2025-1-137","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>New artificial intelligence (AI)-based mortality prediction algorithms could support both patients' prognostic awareness and person-centered palliative care. Although they promise accuracy, their outputs can be hard to explain-potentially affecting whether patients and care teams use them. To investigate perspectives on the explainability of AI algorithms in palliative care, we conducted a sequential mixed-methods study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We interviewed 30 palliative care physicians and nurses; 15 social workers, spiritual care providers, psychologists, and others; and 35 patients and caregivers at four U.S. academic centers (total n=80). The 53 interviews containing data on explainability were analyzed thematically to understand reasons for concern or unconcern. We randomly sampled and surveyed n=2,500 palliative care physicians (overall adjusted response rate, 32.6%). The 537 surveys with complete responses on explainability items were analyzed descriptively; a multivariable model examined predictors of concern.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 53 interviewees, 18 expressed only concern about black box AI-based prognostication, 17 expressed only unconcern, and 18 interviewees expressed mixed sentiments. Reasons for concern related to: data transparency, mistrust of machines or their creators, patient-clinician communication, bias, and accuracy. Reasons for unconcern related to: inexplicability not unique to AI, greater accuracy, not using AI in isolation, trust in science, and being evidence-based. Notably, \"accuracy\" and \"trust\" appeared in both. Overall, 75% of physicians (n=396/528) reported being at least \"moderately concerned\" about unexplainable AI algorithms. Male physicians were less likely to be strongly concerned [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.57; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.36, 0.89; P=0.01] about explainability. Those who perceived AI mortality prediction to be inaccurate were more likely to be concerned (aOR 2.06; 95% CI: 1.27, 3.41; P=0.003).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings suggest that if a black box model is perceived as accurate, there may be less demand for explainability. Nevertheless, in palliative care-where communication is key-explainability may still be central. Future efforts should seek to create models that are both accurate and explainable at the point-of-care.</p>","PeriodicalId":7956,"journal":{"name":"Annals of palliative medicine","volume":" ","pages":"20"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13632713/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of palliative medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21037/apm-2025-1-137","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/2/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: New artificial intelligence (AI)-based mortality prediction algorithms could support both patients' prognostic awareness and person-centered palliative care. Although they promise accuracy, their outputs can be hard to explain-potentially affecting whether patients and care teams use them. To investigate perspectives on the explainability of AI algorithms in palliative care, we conducted a sequential mixed-methods study.
Methods: We interviewed 30 palliative care physicians and nurses; 15 social workers, spiritual care providers, psychologists, and others; and 35 patients and caregivers at four U.S. academic centers (total n=80). The 53 interviews containing data on explainability were analyzed thematically to understand reasons for concern or unconcern. We randomly sampled and surveyed n=2,500 palliative care physicians (overall adjusted response rate, 32.6%). The 537 surveys with complete responses on explainability items were analyzed descriptively; a multivariable model examined predictors of concern.
Results: Among 53 interviewees, 18 expressed only concern about black box AI-based prognostication, 17 expressed only unconcern, and 18 interviewees expressed mixed sentiments. Reasons for concern related to: data transparency, mistrust of machines or their creators, patient-clinician communication, bias, and accuracy. Reasons for unconcern related to: inexplicability not unique to AI, greater accuracy, not using AI in isolation, trust in science, and being evidence-based. Notably, "accuracy" and "trust" appeared in both. Overall, 75% of physicians (n=396/528) reported being at least "moderately concerned" about unexplainable AI algorithms. Male physicians were less likely to be strongly concerned [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.57; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.36, 0.89; P=0.01] about explainability. Those who perceived AI mortality prediction to be inaccurate were more likely to be concerned (aOR 2.06; 95% CI: 1.27, 3.41; P=0.003).
Conclusions: Our findings suggest that if a black box model is perceived as accurate, there may be less demand for explainability. Nevertheless, in palliative care-where communication is key-explainability may still be central. Future efforts should seek to create models that are both accurate and explainable at the point-of-care.
期刊介绍:
Annals of Palliative Medicine (Ann Palliat Med; Print ISSN 2224-5820; Online ISSN 2224-5839) is an open access, international, peer-reviewed journal published quarterly with both online and printed copies since 2012. The aim of the journal is to provide up-to-date and cutting-edge information and professional support for health care providers in palliative medicine disciplines to improve the quality of life for patients and their families and caregivers.