MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413332277 · doi:10.1177/2327857925141010

Factors Influencing Trust in Artificial Intelligence Interventions in Healthcare: A Rapid Review

2025· review· en· W4413332277 on OpenAlex
LaShawn Murray, Enid Montague

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Symposium on Human Factors and Ergonomics in Health Care · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth carePsychological interventionPsychologyApplied psychologyPolitical sciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has the potential to shape the delivery of healthcare and address the quintuple aims of healthcare: improving population health outcomes, lowering costs, improving healthcare provider and patient experiences and advancing health equity. Patients’ and providers’ trust in AI and the trustworthiness of these systems are important factors in the adoption and integration of AI in healthcare. This paper presents an overview of determinants of trust and trustworthiness of AI applications within a healthcare context, based on preliminary themes emerging from a rapid review of 105 studies. These findings can inform appropriate and effective design, development, implementation and integration of AI in healthcare.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.477
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.245
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.215 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it