{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,29]],"date-time":"2026-10-29T07:32:06Z","timestamp":1793259126419,"version":"4.5.0"},"reference-count":78,"publisher":"SAGE Publications","issue":"8","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,7,31]],"date-time":"2026-07-31T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1785456000000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/page\/policies\/text-and-data-mining-license"}],"funder":[{"name":"CBSSM Pilot Project Grant"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["journals.sagepub.com"],"crossmark-restriction":true},"short-container-title":["Med Decis Making"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2026,11]]},"abstract":"<jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Introduction:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Although medical risk calculators are increasingly being used for risk prediction in various contexts, prior research in this area suggests that people may be averse to recommendations from these tools. Moreover, given the rise of artificial intelligence in health care, aversion toward AI may manifest toward risk calculators that use AI\/machine learning models. Recent work has suggested that one potential way to combat AI aversion is through explainable AI (XAI), which can make underlying models more transparent.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Methods:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>The current study investigated whether these factors would affect public trust, acceptance, and comfort related to recommendations from a risk calculator. Participants were randomized into a 2 (calculator type: statistical vs AI)\u2009\u00d7\u20092(model explanation: explained vs not explained)\u2009\u00d7\u20092(evaluability: risk reference table vs no table) between-subjects experimental design. They read a hypothetical scenario and received a calculator output with a risk estimate and recommendation before completing measures of trust, comfort, and acceptance.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Results:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Analyses revealed main effects of calculator type and explanation: participants who received the AI-based calculator outputs were less likely to trust and be comfortable with the calculator recommendation. Participants who received an explanation of the underlying model were more likely to trust and accept the calculator recommendation. However, there was no effect of XAI on trust, acceptance, and comfort or any other significant interactions.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Conclusion:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>The current study serves as a starting point for research on trust and acceptance of AI-based risk calculators. Our findings support the AI aversion hypothesis and suggest that there needs to be more work to identify how best to explain AI-based calculators to foster trust and comfort more specifically.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1177\/0272989x261467775","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2026,7,31]],"date-time":"2026-07-31T11:47:17Z","timestamp":1785498437000},"page":"973-988","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/sage-journals-update-policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":0,"title":["AI Aversion: Do People Trust and Accept Artificial Intelligence Risk Calculator Recommendations?"],"prefix":"10.1177","volume":"46","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-4176-984X","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Madhuri","family":"Ramasubramanian","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Psychological Sciences, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-1637-4176","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Brian J.","family":"Zikmund-Fisher","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Health Behavior and Health Equity, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA"},{"name":"Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"179","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2026,7,31]]},"reference":[{"key":"e_1_3_5_2_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Hemann BA Bimson WF Taylor AJ. The Framingham Risk Score: an appraisal of its benefits and limitations. Am Heart Hosp J. 2007;5(2):91\u201396. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/j.1541-9215.2007.06350.x","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1541-9215.2007.06350.x"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_3_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Goff DCJr et al. 2013 ACC\/AHA guideline on the assessment of cardiovascular risk: a report of the American College of Cardiology\/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63(25):2935\u20132959. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jacc.2013.11.005","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jacc.2013.11.005"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_4_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Lindstrom J Tuomilehto J. The Diabetes Risk Score: a practical tool to predict type 2 diabetes risk. Diabetes Care. 2003;26(3):725\u2013731. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2337\/diacare.26.3.725","DOI":"10.2337\/diacare.26.3.725"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_5_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Gail MH et al. Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1989;81(24):1879\u20131886. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/jnci\/81.24.1879","DOI":"10.1093\/jnci\/81.24.1879"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_6_2","unstructured":"Ferng A. Understanding and creating calculators for medical diagnoses: exclusive interview with MDCALC. Medgadget; 2018. https:\/\/www.medgadget.com\/2018\/06\/understanding-and-creating-new-calculators-for-medical-diagnoses-exclusive-interview-with-mdcalc.html"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_7_2","unstructured":"About Us. MDCalc. n.d. https:\/\/www.mdcalc.com\/about-us"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_8_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Kreuter MW Bull FC Clark EM Oswald DL. Understanding how people process health information: a comparison of tailored and nontailored weight-loss materials. Health Psychol. 1999;18(5):487. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1037\/0278-6133.18.5.487","DOI":"10.1037\/0278-6133.18.5.487"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_9_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Petty RE Cacioppo JT. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Adv Exp Soc Psychol. 1986; 19:123\u2013205. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/S0065-2601(08)60214-2","DOI":"10.1016\/S0065-2601(08)60214-2"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_10_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"French DP Cameron E Benton JS Deaton C Harvie M Can communicating personalised disease risk promote healthy behaviour change? A systematic review of systematic reviews. Annal Behav Med. 2017;51(5):718\u2013729. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s12160-017-9895-z","DOI":"10.1007\/s12160-017-9895-z"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_11_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Harle CA Downs JS Padman R. Effectiveness of personalized and interactive health risk calculators: a randomized trial. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(4):594\u2013605. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/0272989X11431736","DOI":"10.1177\/0272989X11431736"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_12_2","first-page":"283","article-title":"The impact of Web-based diabetes risk calculators on information processing and risk perceptions","volume":"2008","author":"Harle C","year":"2008","unstructured":"Harle C, Padman R, Downs J. The impact of Web-based diabetes risk calculators on information processing and risk perceptions. AMIA Ann Symp Proc. 2008;2008:283.","journal-title":"AMIA Ann Symp Proc"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_13_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Harle CA Padman R Downs JS. Design implementation and preliminary evaluation of a web-based health risk calculator. In: 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences; 2009 Jan 5\u20138; Waikaloa HI. IEEE; 2009. p 1\u201310. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1109\/HICSS.2009.148","DOI":"10.1109\/HICSS.2009.148"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_14_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Bonner C Fajardo MA Hui S Stubbs R Trevena L. Clinical validity understandability and actionability of online cardiovascular disease risk calculators: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2018;20(2):e29. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2196\/jmir.8538","DOI":"10.2196\/jmir.8538"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_15_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Dietvorst BJ Simmons JP Massey C. Algorithm aversion: people erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2015;144(1):114. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1037\/xge0000033","DOI":"10.1037\/xge0000033"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_16_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Dietvorst BJ Simmons JP Massey C. Overcoming algorithm aversion: people will use imperfect algorithms if they can (even slightly) modify them. Manage Sci. 2018;64(3):1155\u20131170. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1287\/mnsc.2016.2643","DOI":"10.1287\/mnsc.2016.2643"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_17_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Shaffer VA Probst CA Merkle EC Arkes HR Medow MA. Why do patients derogate physicians who use a computer-based diagnostic support system? Med Decis Making. 2013;33(1):108\u2013118. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/0272989X12453501","DOI":"10.1177\/0272989X12453501"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_18_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Arkes HR Shaffer VA Medow MA. Patients derogate physicians who use a computer-assisted diagnostic aid. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(2):189\u2013202. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/0272989X06297391","DOI":"10.1177\/0272989X06297391"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_19_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Bankuoru Egala S Liang D. Algorithm aversion to mobile clinical decision support among clinicians: a choice-based conjoint analysis. Eur J Inf Syst. 2024;33(6):1016\u20131032. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/0960085X.2023.2251927","DOI":"10.1080\/0960085X.2023.2251927"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_20_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Logg JM Minson JA Moore DA. Algorithm appreciation: people prefer algorithmic to human judgment. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2019;151:90\u2013103. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.obhdp.2018.12.005","DOI":"10.1016\/j.obhdp.2018.12.005"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_21_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"P\u00e1lfi B Arora K Kostopoulou O. Algorithm-based advice taking and clinical judgement: impact of advice distance and algorithm information. Cognit Res Princ Implic. 2022;7(1):70. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s41235-022-00421-6","DOI":"10.1186\/s41235-022-00421-6"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_22_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Kostopoulou O Arora K P\u00e1lfi B. Using cancer risk algorithms to improve risk estimates and referral decisions. Commun Med. 2022;2(1):2. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1038\/s43856-021-00069-1","DOI":"10.1038\/s43856-021-00069-1"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_23_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"P\u00e1lfi B Arora K Prociuk D Kostopoulou O. Risk prediction algorithms and clinical judgment: impact of advice distance social proof and feature-importance explanations. Comput Hum Behav. 2024;153:108102. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.chb.2023.108102","DOI":"10.1016\/j.chb.2023.108102"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_24_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Nurek M Kostopoulou O. How the UK public views the use of diagnostic decision aids by physicians: a vignette-based experiment. J Am Med Inf Assoc. 2023;30(5):888\u2013898. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/jamia\/ocad019","DOI":"10.1093\/jamia\/ocad019"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_25_2","first-page":"609","article-title":"Rage against the artificial intelligence? Understanding contextuality of algorithm aversion and appreciation","volume":"18","author":"Oomen T","year":"2024","unstructured":"Oomen T, Goncalves J, Mols A. Rage against the artificial intelligence? Understanding contextuality of algorithm aversion and appreciation. Int J Commun. 2024;18:609\u2013633.","journal-title":"Int J Commun"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_26_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Judek JR. Willingness to use algorithms varies with social information on weak vs. strong adoption: an experimental study on algorithm aversion. FinTech. 2024;3(1):55\u201365. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3390\/fintech3010004","DOI":"10.3390\/fintech3010004"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_27_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Burton JW Stein MK Jensen TB. A systematic review of algorithm aversion in augmented decision making. J Behav Decis Making. 2020;33(2):220\u2013239. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/bdm.2155","DOI":"10.1002\/bdm.2155"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_28_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Jamthikar A et al. Cardiovascular\/stroke risk predictive calculators: a comparison between statistical and machine learning models. Cardiovas Diagn Therapy. 2020;10(4):919. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.21037\/cdt.2020.01.07","DOI":"10.21037\/cdt.2020.01.07"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_29_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Cai Y et al. Artificial intelligence in the risk prediction models of cardiovascular disease and development of an independent validation screening tool: a systematic review. BMC Med. 2024;22(1):56. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s12916-024-03273-7","DOI":"10.1186\/s12916-024-03273-7"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_30_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Christodoulou E et al. A systematic review shows no performance benefit of machine learning over logistic regression for clinical prediction models. J Clin Epidemiolol. 2019;110:12\u201322. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jclinepi.2019.02.004","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jclinepi.2019.02.004"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_31_2","unstructured":"Faverio M. What the data says about Americans\u2019 views of artificial intelligence. Pew Research Center; 2023. https:\/\/www.pewresearch.org\/short-reads\/2023\/11\/21\/what-the-data-says-about-americans-views-of-artificial-intelligence\/"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_32_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Larkin C Drummond Otten C \u00c1rvai J. Paging Dr. JARVIS! Will people accept advice from artificial intelligence for consequential risk management decisions? J Risk Res. 2022;25(4):407\u2013422. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/13669877.2021.1958047","DOI":"10.1080\/13669877.2021.1958047"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_33_2","unstructured":"State of Customer Conversations 2024. State of Customer Conversations 2024 a conversational AI trends report. n.d. https:\/\/www.liveperson.com\/customer-conversations-report\/"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_34_2","unstructured":"Gohel P Singh P Mohanty M. Explainable AI: current status and future directions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.07045. 2021. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.48550\/arXiv.2107.07045"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_35_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Fischhoff B. Risk perception and communication unplugged: twenty years of process 1. Risk Anal. 1995;15(2):137\u2013145. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/j.1539-6924.1995.tb00308.x","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1539-6924.1995.tb00308.x"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_36_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Kurz-Milcke E Gigerenzer G Martignon L. Transparency in risk communication: graphical and analog tools. Annal N Y Acad of Sci. 2008;1128(1):18\u201328. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1196\/annals.1399.004","DOI":"10.1196\/annals.1399.004"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_37_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Zikmund-Fisher BJ. The right tool is what they need not what we have: a taxonomy of appropriate levels of precision in patient risk communication. Med Care Res Rev. 2013;70:37S\u201349S. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/1077558712458541","DOI":"10.1177\/1077558712458541"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_38_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Yaniv I. Receiving other people\u2019s advice: influence and benefit. Organi Behav Hum Decis Process. 2004;93(1):1\u201313. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.obhdp.2003.08.002","DOI":"10.1016\/j.obhdp.2003.08.002"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_39_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Yaniv I. The benefit of additional opinions. Curr Directions Psychol Sci. 2004;13(2):75\u201378. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/j.0963-7214.2004.00278.x","DOI":"10.1111\/j.0963-7214.2004.00278.x"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_40_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"H\u00fctter M Ache F. Seeking advice: a sampling approach to advice taking. Judgment Decis Making. 2016;11(4):401\u2013415. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/S193029750000382X","DOI":"10.1017\/S193029750000382X"},{"issue":"1","key":"e_1_3_5_41_2","first-page":"10","article-title":"The role of transparency in reducing information asymmetry","volume":"1","author":"Armstrong P.","year":"2025","unstructured":"Armstrong P. The role of transparency in reducing information asymmetry. gjstudies. 2025;1(1):10\u201310.","journal-title":"gjstudies"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_42_2","unstructured":"Wang Y Zhang T Guo X Shen Z. Gradient based feature attribution in explainable ai: a technical review. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.10415. 2024. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.48550\/arXiv.2403.10415"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_43_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.radi.2023.09.012"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_44_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Ben David D Resheff YS Tron T. Explainable AI and adoption of financial algorithmic advisors: an experimental study. In: Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI\/ACM Conference on AI Ethics and Society; 2021 May 19\u201321; virtual event. Association for Computing Machinery; 2021. p 390\u2013400. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1145\/3461702.3462565","DOI":"10.1145\/3461702.3462565"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_45_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Weitz K Schiller D Schlagowski R Huber T Andr\u00e9 E. \u201cDo you trust me?\u201d Increasing user-trust by integrating virtual agents in explainable AI interaction design. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents; 2019 Jul 2\u20135; Paris France. Association for Computing Machinery; 2019. p 7\u20139. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1145\/3308532.332944","DOI":"10.1145\/3308532.3329441"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_46_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Leichtmann B Humer C Hinterreiter A Streit M Mara M. Effects of explainable artificial intelligence on trust and human behavior in a high-risk decision task. Comp Hum Behav. 2023;139:107539. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.chb.2022.107539","DOI":"10.1016\/j.chb.2022.107539"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_47_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Rosenbacke R Melhus \u00c5 McKee M Stuckler D. How explainable artificial intelligence can increase or decrease clinicians\u2019 trust in AI Applications in health care: systematic review. JMIR AI. 2024;3:e53207. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2196\/53207","DOI":"10.2196\/53207"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_48_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Diprose WK et al. Physician understanding explainability and trust in a hypothetical machine learning risk calculator. J Am Med Inf Assoc. 2020;27(4):592\u2013600. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/jamia\/ocz229","DOI":"10.1093\/jamia\/ocz229"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_49_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Panigutti C Beretta A Giannotti F Pedreschi D. Understanding the impact of explanations on advice-taking: a user study for AI-based clinical decision support systems. In: Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; 2022 Apr 29\u2013May 5; New Orleans LA. p 1\u20139. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1145\/3491102.3502104","DOI":"10.1145\/3491102.3502104"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_50_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Liu CF Chen ZC Kuo SC Lin TC. Does AI explainability affect physicians\u2019 intention to use AI? Int J Med Inf. 2022;168:104884. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.ijmedinf.2022.104884","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ijmedinf.2022.104884"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_51_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Kharbanda AB et al. Development and validation of a novel pediatric appendicitis risk calculator (pARC). Pediatrics. 2018;141(4):e20172699. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1542\/peds.2017-2699","DOI":"10.1542\/peds.2017-2699"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_52_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Cotton DM et al. Validation of the pediatric appendicitis risk calculator (pARC) in a community emergency department setting. Annal Emerg Med. 2019;74(4):471\u2013480. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.annemergmed.2019.04.023","DOI":"10.1016\/j.annemergmed.2019.04.023"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_53_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Mitchell M et al. Model cards for model reporting. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness Accountability and Transparency; 2019 Jan 29\u201331; Atlanta GA. Association for Computing Machinery; p 220\u2013229. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1145\/3287560.3287596","DOI":"10.1145\/3287560.3287596"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_54_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Naeem S Ali A Anam S Ahmed MM. An unsupervised machine learning algorithms: comprehensive review. Int J Comp Digital Sys. 2023;13(1). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.12785\/ijcds\/130172","DOI":"10.12785\/ijcds\/130172"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_55_2","unstructured":"IBM. What is unsupervised learning? IBM; 2025. https:\/\/www.ibm.com\/think\/topics\/unsupervised-learning"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_56_2","article-title":"A look into how a human-in-the-loop experience may alleviate algorithm aversion [master\u2019s thesis]","author":"Hussein Y.","year":"2021","unstructured":"Hussein Y. A look into how a human-in-the-loop experience may alleviate algorithm aversion [master\u2019s thesis]. Fordham University; 2021.","journal-title":"Fordham University;"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_57_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Zikmund-Fisher BJ Smith DM Ubel PA Fagerlin A. Validation of the Subjective Numeracy Scale: effects of low numeracy on comprehension of risk communications and utility elicitations. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(5):663\u2013671. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/0272989X07303824","DOI":"10.1177\/0272989X07303824"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_58_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Fagerlin A et al. Measuring numeracy without a math test: development of the Subjective Numeracy Scale. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(5):672\u2013680. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/0272989X07304449","DOI":"10.1177\/0272989X07304449"},{"issue":"8","key":"e_1_3_5_59_2","first-page":"588","article-title":"Brief questions to identify patients with inadequate health literacy","volume":"36","author":"Chew LD","year":"2004","unstructured":"Chew LD, Bradley KA, Boyko EJ. Brief questions to identify patients with inadequate health literacy. Fam Med. 2004;36(8):588\u2013594.","journal-title":"Fam Med"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_60_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Fritsch SJ et al. Attitudes and perception of artificial intelligence in healthcare: a cross-sectional survey among patients. Digital Health. 2022;8:20552076221116772. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/20552076221116772","DOI":"10.1177\/20552076221116772"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_61_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Gurmankin AD Baron J Armstrong K. The effect of numerical statements of risk on trust and comfort with hypothetical physician risk communication. Med Decis Making. 2004;24(3):265\u2013271. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/0272989X04265482","DOI":"10.1177\/0272989X04265482"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_62_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Goh WW et al. Risk perception acceptance and trust of using AI in gastroenterology practice in the Asia-Pacific region: web-based survey study. JMIR AI. 2024;3(1):e50525. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2196\/50525","DOI":"10.2196\/50525"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_63_2","unstructured":"Bulus M Jentschke S. pwrss: statistical power and sample size calculation tools. R package version 1.0.0; 2025."},{"key":"e_1_3_5_64_2","volume-title":"Proceedings of the 28th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), An Online AIS Conference","author":"Jussupow E","unstructured":"Jussupow E, Benbasat I, Heinzl A. Why are we averse towards algorithms? A comprehensive literature review on algorithm aversion. In: Proceedings of the 28th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), An Online AIS Conference; 2020 Jun 15\u201317; virtual event."},{"key":"e_1_3_5_65_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Bedu\u00e9 P Fritzsche A. Can we trust AI? An empirical investigation of trust requirements and guide to successful AI adoption. J Enterp Inf Manage. 2022;35(2):530\u2013549. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1108\/JEIM-06-2020-0233","DOI":"10.1108\/JEIM-06-2020-0233"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_66_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Bracamonte V Pape S L\u00f6bner S Tronnier F. Effectiveness and information quality perception of an AI model card: a study among non-experts. In: 20th Annual International Conference on Privacy Security and Trust (PST); 2023 Aug 21\u201323. IEEE; 2023. pp 1\u20137. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1109\/PST58708.2023.10320197","DOI":"10.1109\/PST58708.2023.10320197"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_67_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Ewerz B Hoefler M Marx C Moertl P. How to facilitate explainability of AI for increased user trust: results of a study with a COVID-19 risk calculator. In: 44th International Convention on Information Communication and Electronic Technology (MIPRO); 2021 Sep 27\u2013Oct 1; Opatija Croatia. IEEE; 2021. p 1076\u20131080. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.23919\/MIPRO52101.2021.9596837","DOI":"10.23919\/MIPRO52101.2021.9596837"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_68_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Bilimoria KY et al. Development and evaluation of the universal ACS NSQIP surgical risk calculator: a decision aid and informed consent tool for patients and surgeons. J Am College Surg. 2013;217(5):833\u2013842. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jamcollsurg.2013.07.385","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jamcollsurg.2013.07.385"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_69_2","unstructured":"Prentzas N Kakas A Pattichis CS. Explainable AI applications in the medical domain: a systematic review. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.05411. 2023. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.48550\/arXiv.2308.05411"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_70_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Bonner C et al. I don\u2019t believe it but I\u2019d better do something about it: patient experiences of online heart age risk calculators. J Med Internet Res. 2014; 16(5):e3190. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2196\/jmir.3190","DOI":"10.2196\/jmir.3190"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_71_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Mansmann U Rieger A Strahwald B Crispin A. Risk calculators\u2014methods development implementation and validation. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2016;31:1111\u20131116. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00384-016-2589-3","DOI":"10.1007\/s00384-016-2589-3"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_72_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Zikmund-Fisher BJ. Helping people know whether measurements have good or bad implications: increasing the evaluability of health and science data communications. Policy Insights Behav Brain Sci. 2019;6(1):29\u201337. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/2372732218813377","DOI":"10.1177\/2372732218813377"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_73_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Hsee CK. The evaluability hypothesis: an explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1996;67(3):247\u2013257. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1006\/obhd.1996.0077","DOI":"10.1006\/obhd.1996.0077"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_74_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Yin HS et al. Perceived barriers to care and attitudes towards shared decision-making among low socioeconomic status parents: role of health literacy. Acad Pediatr. 2012;12(2):117\u2013124. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.acap.2012.01.001","DOI":"10.1016\/j.acap.2012.01.001"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_75_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1002\/9780470752937.ch29"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_76_2","unstructured":"Appendicitis in kids: know the signs & symptoms. Cleveland Clinic; 2025. https:\/\/my.clevelandclinic.org\/health\/diseases\/10792-appendicitis-in-children"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_77_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Rising KL et al. Return visits to the emergency department: the patient perspective. Ann Emerg Med. 2015;65(4):377\u2013386. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.annemergmed.2014.07.015","DOI":"10.1016\/j.annemergmed.2014.07.015"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_78_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Musso MW et al. Patients\u2019 comprehension of their emergency department encounter: a pilot study using physician observers. Ann Emerg Med. 2015;65(2):151\u2013155. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.annemergmed.2014.08.012","DOI":"10.1016\/j.annemergmed.2014.08.012"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_79_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Zikmund-Fisher BJ Sarr B Fagerlin A Ubel PA. A matter of perspective: choosing for others differs from choosing for yourself in making treatment decisions. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21(6):618\u2013622. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/j.1525-1497.2006.00410.x","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1525-1497.2006.00410.x"}],"container-title":["Medical Decision Making"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/pdf\/10.1177\/0272989X261467775","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/full-xml\/10.1177\/0272989X261467775","content-type":"application\/xml","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/pdf\/10.1177\/0272989X261467775","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,29]],"date-time":"2026-10-29T06:41:03Z","timestamp":1793256063000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/0272989X261467775"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2026,7,31]]},"references-count":78,"journal-issue":{"issue":"8","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2026,11]]}},"alternative-id":["10.1177\/0272989X261467775"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/0272989x261467775","relation":{},"ISSN":["0272-989X","1552-681X"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0272-989X","type":"print"},{"value":"1552-681X","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2026,7,31]]}}}