From Trust in Automation to Trust in AI in Healthcare: A 30-Year Longitudinal Review and an Interdisciplinary Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human-machine trust has shifted over the past three decades from trust in automation to trust in AI, while research paradigms, disciplines, and problem spaces have expanded. Centered on AI in healthcare, this narrative review offers a longitudinal synthesis that traces and compares phase-specific changes in theory and method, providing design guidance for human-AI systems at different stages of maturity. From a cross-disciplinary view, we introduce an Interdisciplinary Human-AI Trust Research (I-HATR) framework that aligns explainable AI (XAI) with human-computer interaction/human factors engineering (HCI/HFE). We distill three core categories of determinants of human-AI trust in healthcare, user characteristics, AI system attributes, and contextual factors, and summarize the main measurement families and their evolution from self-report to behavioral and psychophysiological approaches, with growing use of multimodal and dynamic evaluation. Finally, we outline key trends, opportunities, and practical challenges to support the development of human-centered, trustworthy AI in healthcare, emphasizing the need to bridge actual trustworthiness and perceived trust through shared metrics, uncertainty communication, and trust calibration.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".