Back

How Best to Explain Machine Learning Models to Clinicians: A User Study of Explanation Types

Brown, B.; Oguss, M.; Carey, K. A.; Martin, J.; Kotula, C. A.; Nguyen, O. T.; Akel, M.; Wiegmann, D. A.; Edelson, D. P.; Mayampurath, A.; Churpek, M. M.; Craven, M.

2026-07-10 health informatics
10.64898/2026.06.30.26356761 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: Explanations play a crucial role in helping clinicians understand how black-box machine learning models make predictions in clinical settings. Several different types of explanations have been developed, each corresponding to a unique approach for characterizing the relationships between model inputs and predictions. However, it remains unclear what types of explanations are the most valued by clinicians. Objective: To improve the utility of machine learning in clinical settings, we aimed to evaluate how different explanation methods are valued by clinicians across clinically important metrics, such as importance, trust, understanding, and how explanations affect clinicians' thinking about patients. Methods: We conducted a user study of 39 critical care and hospital medicine nurses and physicians to compare attribution, counterfactual, and rule-based explanations. We analyzed the impact of each type of explanation on clinicians' trust in and understanding of the predictions made by machine learning models, how well clinicians understood the explanation, and how the explanation affected what they thought were the most important features for determining patients' status. We also assessed clinicians' preferences for the representation of different types of explanations. Results: Clinicians consider explanations of clinical machine learning models important, with physicians perceiving explanations as more important after interacting with them than nurses. All explanation types affected clinicians across all measured dimensions, with attribution explanations having the most significant positive effects on all measured dimensions. Moreover, nearly half of clinicians preferred viewing multiple explanation types together. Conclusions: It is important to provide explanations for predictions made by machine-learning models in clinical settings. When implementing machine learning explanations in these settings, developers should prioritize attribution explanations while allowing for multiple types of explanations to be shown. Furthermore, the development of new explanation methods should be tailored towards specific clinical roles, as nurses and physicians may utilize explanations differently to support their respective workflows.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
71 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
18.0%
2
npj Digital Medicine
118 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
14.6%
3
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
43 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
7.6%
4
PLOS Digital Health
106 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
6.5%
5
JAMIA Open
42 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.5%
50% of probability mass above
6
International Journal of Medical Informatics
26 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.3%
7
Frontiers in Digital Health
24 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
5.0%
8
Journal of Medical Internet Research
87 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
3.9%
9
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 39%
3.1%
10
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.1%
11
Computers in Biology and Medicine
128 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.1%
12
DIGITAL HEALTH
17 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.4%
13
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
47 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.3%
14
JMIR Medical Informatics
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.3%
15
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
20 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.6%
16
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 67%
1.1%
17
JMIR Formative Research
33 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
18
CHEST
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
19
Artificial Intelligence in Medicine
17 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.6%
20
Cancer Medicine
26 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%