In Algorithms We Trust? Stakeholder Perspectives on Algorithmic and AI-Based Survival Calculators.

Q1 Arts and Humanities
AJOB Empirical Bioethics Pub Date : 2026-07-01 Epub Date: 2026-08-20 DOI:10.1080/23294515.2026.2718056
Meghan E Hurley, Kristin Kostick-Quenet, Jared N Smith, Joanna Smolenski, Rita Dexter, Jennifer Blumenthal-Barby
{"title":"In Algorithms We Trust? Stakeholder Perspectives on Algorithmic and AI-Based Survival Calculators.","authors":"Meghan E Hurley, Kristin Kostick-Quenet, Jared N Smith, Joanna Smolenski, Rita Dexter, Jennifer Blumenthal-Barby","doi":"10.1080/23294515.2026.2718056","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The integration of digital algorithms and artificial intelligence (AI) into healthcare has enabled personalized medicine, e.g., prognostic calculators that predict survival/mortality estimates and patient risk stratification. Alongside these advancements, understanding patients' trust in and perspectives on the use of these tools in their healthcare is essential.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Interviews were conducted with advanced heart failure patients (and caregivers) who received algorithmic personalized survival estimates (PSEs) in the context of education and decision making about left-ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy as part of their clinical care. We examine stakeholder trust considerations for their algorithmic-based PSEs received during LVAD education and the potential impact of AI-generated PSEs on trust in PSEs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Rationales for patient trust in their received, algorithmic PSEs fell into three categories - relational (e.g., physician trusts algorithm's output so patient does), epistemic (e.g., algorithm accuracy and performance), and personal belief-based (e.g., religious beliefs about algorithmic vs. God's predictive power). Relational trust considerations were mostly absent from trust considerations for hypothetical AI-generated PSEs, and despite acknowledgement of potential performance benefits (greater predictive power) of AI-based tools, responses were dominated by personal belief-based trust considerations rooted in inaccurate understandings of the application of AI in the healthcare context (e.g., AI as \"the Terminator\").</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While algorithmic PSEs benefit from epistemic and relational trust considerations, AI-based PSEs may face distinct barriers rooted in misconceptions about AI's capabilities or application. Combating such misconceptions about AI may require a combination of approaches, like furthering AI education, physician oversight for AI systems utilized in their patients' care, and more conscientious framing and language regarding what AI is and can do. As AI continues to integrate into medical care and decision-making, these findings underscore the importance of acknowledging and addressing personal and relational dimensions of patient trust in AI systems in addition to epistemic or performance aspects.</p>","PeriodicalId":38118,"journal":{"name":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":"160-173"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2026.2718056","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/8/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The integration of digital algorithms and artificial intelligence (AI) into healthcare has enabled personalized medicine, e.g., prognostic calculators that predict survival/mortality estimates and patient risk stratification. Alongside these advancements, understanding patients' trust in and perspectives on the use of these tools in their healthcare is essential.

Methods: Interviews were conducted with advanced heart failure patients (and caregivers) who received algorithmic personalized survival estimates (PSEs) in the context of education and decision making about left-ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy as part of their clinical care. We examine stakeholder trust considerations for their algorithmic-based PSEs received during LVAD education and the potential impact of AI-generated PSEs on trust in PSEs.

Results: Rationales for patient trust in their received, algorithmic PSEs fell into three categories - relational (e.g., physician trusts algorithm's output so patient does), epistemic (e.g., algorithm accuracy and performance), and personal belief-based (e.g., religious beliefs about algorithmic vs. God's predictive power). Relational trust considerations were mostly absent from trust considerations for hypothetical AI-generated PSEs, and despite acknowledgement of potential performance benefits (greater predictive power) of AI-based tools, responses were dominated by personal belief-based trust considerations rooted in inaccurate understandings of the application of AI in the healthcare context (e.g., AI as "the Terminator").

Conclusions: While algorithmic PSEs benefit from epistemic and relational trust considerations, AI-based PSEs may face distinct barriers rooted in misconceptions about AI's capabilities or application. Combating such misconceptions about AI may require a combination of approaches, like furthering AI education, physician oversight for AI systems utilized in their patients' care, and more conscientious framing and language regarding what AI is and can do. As AI continues to integrate into medical care and decision-making, these findings underscore the importance of acknowledging and addressing personal and relational dimensions of patient trust in AI systems in addition to epistemic or performance aspects.

在我们信任的算法中?利益相关者对算法和基于人工智能的生存计算器的看法。
背景:将数字算法和人工智能(AI)集成到医疗保健中,使个性化医疗成为可能,例如,预测生存/死亡率估计和患者风险分层的预后计算器。除了这些进步之外,了解患者对在其医疗保健中使用这些工具的信任和观点至关重要。方法:对晚期心力衰竭患者(和护理人员)进行访谈,这些患者在接受左心室辅助装置(LVAD)治疗的教育和决策的背景下接受算法个性化生存估计(pse),作为其临床护理的一部分。我们研究了利益相关者在LVAD教育期间收到的基于算法的pse的信任考虑因素,以及人工智能生成的pse对pse信任的潜在影响。结果:患者对其接收到的算法pse的信任理由分为三类-关系(例如,医生信任算法的输出,因此患者确实信任),认识论(例如,算法的准确性和性能)和基于个人信仰(例如,关于算法与上帝预测能力的宗教信仰)。对于假设的人工智能生成的初级阶段,信任考虑中大多缺乏关系信任考虑,尽管承认基于人工智能的工具的潜在性能优势(更强的预测能力),但回应主要是基于个人信念的信任考虑,其植根于对人工智能在医疗保健环境中的应用的不准确理解(例如,人工智能是“终结者”)。结论:虽然算法pse受益于认知和关系信任考虑,但基于人工智能的pse可能面临明显的障碍,这些障碍源于对人工智能能力或应用的误解。消除这些对人工智能的误解可能需要多种方法的结合,比如进一步的人工智能教育,医生对病人护理中使用的人工智能系统的监督,以及关于人工智能是什么和可以做什么的更认真的框架和语言。随着人工智能继续融入医疗保健和决策,这些发现强调了除认知或性能方面外,承认和解决患者对人工智能系统信任的个人和关系方面的重要性。
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
AJOB Empirical Bioethics
AJOB Empirical Bioethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
×
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