Why the study?
Alongside advancements integrating digital algorithms and artificial intelligence into healthcare, understanding patients' trust in and perspectives on the use of these prognostic tools is essential.
Patients' trust in AI-based survival calculators is hindered by misconceptions and lacks the relational trust seen with standard algorithmic calculators, highlighting the need for better AI education and physician oversight.
Patient perspectives on AI tools in advanced HF merit integration into care discussions; leaves open how trust shapes adoption and equity.
BACKGROUND: The integration of digital algorithms and artificial intelligence (AI) into healthcare has enabled personalized medicine, e.g., prognostic calculators that predict survival/mortality estimates and patient risk stratification. Alongside these advancements, understanding patients' trust in and perspectives on the use of these tools in their healthcare is essential. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with advanced heart failure patients (and caregivers) who received algorithmic personalized survival estimates (PSEs) in the context of education and decision making about left-ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy as part of their clinical care. We examine stakeholder trust considerations for their algorithmic-based PSEs received during LVAD education and the potential impact of AI-generated PSEs on trust in PSEs. RESULTS: Rationales for patient trust in their received, algorithmic PSEs fell into three categories - relational (e.g., physician trusts algorithm's output so patient does), epistemic (e.g., algorithm accuracy and performance), and personal belief-based (e.g., religious beliefs about algorithmic vs. God's predictive power). Relational trust considerations were mostly absent from trust considerations for hypothetical AI-generated PSEs, and despite acknowledgement of potential performance benefits (greater predictive power) of AI-based tools, responses were dominated by personal belief-based trust considerations rooted in inaccurate understandings of the application of AI in the healthcare context (e.g., AI as "the Terminator"). CONCLUSIONS: While algorithmic PSEs benefit from epistemic and relational trust considerations, AI-based PSEs may face distinct barriers rooted in misconceptions about AI's capabilities or application. Combating such misconceptions about AI may require a combination of approaches, like furthering AI education, physician oversight for AI systems utilized in their patients' care, and more conscientious framing and language regarding what AI is and can do. As AI continues to integrate into medical care and decision-making, these findings underscore the importance of acknowledging and addressing personal and relational dimensions of patient trust in AI systems in addition to epistemic or performance aspects.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hurley et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: