In Algorithms We Trust? Stakeholder Perspectives on Algorithmic and AI-Based Survival Calculators

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
AJOB Empirical Bioethics
Published
2026-08-20
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2026.2718056
Primary Topic
Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

In Algorithms We Trust? Stakeholder Perspectives on Algorithmic and AI-Based Survival Calculators

Joanna Smolenski, Kristin M. Kostick, Jared N. Smith, Jennifer Blumenthal‐Barby et al.
AJOB Empirical Bioethics
Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices
article

In Algorithms We Trust? Stakeholder Perspectives on Algorithmic and AI-Based Survival Calculators

Joanna Smolenski, Kristin M. Kostick, Jared N. Smith, Jennifer Blumenthal‐Barby, Meghan E. Hurley, Rita Dexter
article en

Abstract

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.

AJOB Empirical Bioethics
Baylor College of Medicine (US)
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 18%
Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.