PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
March 3, 2026Social Science & Medicine2 citationsOpen Access

Interdisciplinary expertise to advance human-centered explainable AI

View Full Paper
CBChloe R. BennettHCHeather Cole-LewisSFStephanie Farquhar

Key Points

  • Key findings indicate that the interdisciplinary panel effectively identified biases in AI explanations, enhancing model reliability.
  • A notable aspect was the identification of confounders, leveraging insights from social epidemiology and behavioral science.
  • The introduction of a human-in-the-loop model pairs generative explainable AI with rigorous expert evaluation for improved analyses.
  • This framework supports collaboration across disciplines, fostering a more thorough understanding of AI applications in healthcare.

Abstract

The field of artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly influencing health and healthcare, but bias and inadequate subgroup performance persists. Previous work has clearly outlined the need for more rigorous attention to data representativeness and model performance to advance population health and reduce bias. However, there is an opportunity to leverage best practices of social epidemiology, behavior science, and health services research to help develop hypotheses for associations found, particularly when using explainable AI (XAI) methods. This paper introduces a novel human-in-the-loop model that couples generative XAI with a wraparound interdisciplinary expert panel review process. This human-centered approach critically assesses AI model explanations from multiple perspectives, effectively identifying areas of bias and pinpointing directions for future research. We summarize the approach, highlighting processes and findings where the interdisciplinary expert panel produced interpretations which were historically and contextually informed. In particular, the interdisciplinary panel identified potential confounders and brought in scientific evidence from previous studies, which have clear implications to reduce bias. This promising human-centered framework not only maximizes multidisciplinary methodological rigor for AI model improvement and eventual implementation but also proactively fosters team science opportunities in future research.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Bennett et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69a75ab8c6e9836116a20e43https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2026.119036
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Potential Biases in Machine Learning Algorithms Using Electronic Health Record Data2018 · 1,412 citations
  2. 2Comparison of Weighted and Unweighted Population Data to Assess Inequities in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Deaths by Race/Ethnicity Reported by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention2020 · 57 citations
  3. 3Online database of clinical algorithms with race and ethnicity2025 · 9 citations
  4. 4New Creatinine- and Cystatin C–Based Equations to Estimate GFR without Race2021 · 4,431 citations
  5. 5The Crucial Role of Interdisciplinary Conferences in Advancing Explainable AI in Healthcare2024 · 45 citations