"Black box" artificial intelligence for mortality prediction: a mixed-methods study of palliative care team, patient, and caregiver perspectives.

4区 医学 Q2 Nursing
Annals of palliative medicine Pub Date : 2026-03-01 Epub Date: 2026-02-26 DOI:10.21037/apm-2025-1-137
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.

死亡率预测的“黑匣子”人工智能:姑息治疗团队、患者和护理人员视角的混合方法研究。
背景:新的基于人工智能(AI)的死亡率预测算法可以支持患者的预后意识和以人为本的姑息治疗。尽管它们承诺准确性,但它们的产出很难解释——这可能会影响患者和护理团队是否使用它们。方法:为了探讨人工智能算法在姑息治疗中的可解释性,我们进行了一项顺序混合方法研究。我们采访了30名姑息治疗医生和护士;15名社会工作者、精神护理人员、心理学家等;以及美国4个学术中心的35名患者和护理人员(共80人)。对包含可解释性数据的53个访谈进行主题分析,以了解关注或不关注的原因。我们随机抽样并调查了n=2,500名姑息治疗医生(总体调整后反应率为32.6%)。对537份可解释性项目回答完整的问卷进行描述性分析;一个多变量模型检验了关注的预测因子。结果:在53位受访者中,18位表示只关注黑箱人工智能预测,17位表示不关注,18位表示情绪复杂。担忧的原因涉及:数据透明度、对机器或其创造者的不信任、医患沟通、偏见和准确性。不关心的原因涉及:人工智能的不可解释性、更高的准确性、不孤立地使用人工智能、对科学的信任以及基于证据。值得注意的是,“准确性”和“信任”在两者中都出现了。总体而言,75%的医生(n=396/528)报告至少“适度关注”无法解释的人工智能算法。男性医生不太可能强烈关注[调整后优势比(aOR) 0.57;95%置信区间(CI): 0.36, 0.89;P=0.01]的可解释性。那些认为人工智能死亡率预测不准确的人更有可能担心(aOR 2.06; 95% CI: 1.27, 3.41; P=0.003)。结论:我们的研究结果表明,如果黑盒模型被认为是准确的,那么对可解释性的需求可能会减少。然而,在以沟通为关键的姑息治疗中,可解释性可能仍然是核心。未来的努力应寻求建立既准确又可解释的模型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Annals of palliative medicine
Annals of palliative medicine Medicine-Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
自引率
0.00%
发文量
231
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书