How Explainable Artificial Intelligence Can Increase or Decrease Clinicians' Trust in AI Applications in Health Care: Systematic Review.

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) has significant potential in clinical practice. However, its "black box" nature can lead clinicians to question its value. The challenge is to create sufficient trust for clinicians to feel comfortable using AI, but not so much that they defer to it even when it produces results that conflict with their clinical judgment in ways that lead to incorrect decisions. Explainable AI (XAI) aims to address this by providing explanations of how AI algorithms reach their conclusions. However, it remains unclear whether such explanations foster an appropriate degree of trust to ensure the optimal use of AI in clinical practice.

Objective: This study aims to systematically review and synthesize empirical evidence on the impact of XAI on clinicians' trust in AI-driven clinical decision-making.

Methods: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, searching PubMed and Web of Science databases. Studies were included if they empirically measured the impact of XAI on clinicians' trust using cognition- or affect-based measures. Out of 778 articles screened, 10 met the inclusion criteria. We assessed the risk of bias using standard tools appropriate to the methodology of each paper.

Results: The risk of bias in all papers was moderate or moderate to high. All included studies operationalized trust primarily through cognitive-based definitions, with 2 also incorporating affect-based measures. Out of these, 5 studies reported that XAI increased clinicians' trust compared with standard AI, particularly when the explanations were clear, concise, and relevant to clinical practice. In addition, 3 studies found no significant effect of XAI on trust, and the presence of explanations does not automatically improve trust. Notably, 2 studies highlighted that XAI could either enhance or diminish trust, depending on the complexity and coherence of the provided explanations. The majority of studies suggest that XAI has the potential to enhance clinicians' trust in recommendations generated by AI. However, complex or contradictory explanations can undermine this trust. More critically, trust in AI is not inherently beneficial, as AI recommendations are not infallible. These findings underscore the nuanced role of explanation quality and suggest that trust can be modulated through the careful design of XAI systems.

Conclusions: Excessive trust in incorrect advice generated by AI can adversely impact clinical accuracy, just as can happen when correct advice is distrusted. Future research should focus on refining both cognitive and affect-based measures of trust and on developing strategies to achieve an appropriate balance in terms of trust, preventing both blind trust and undue skepticism. Optimizing trust in AI systems is essential for their effective integration into clinical practice.