Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41299433›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2025

Human-centered AI in healthcare: empowering patients and support persons in clinical decision-making.

Zeineb Sassi, Sascha Eickmann, Roland Roller, Bilgin Osmanodja, Aljoscha Burchardt, Max Tretter, David Samhammer, Peter Dabrock, Sebastian Möller, Klemens Budde and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Zeineb SassiDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Medical Sociology, University Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany. zeineb.sassi@klinik.uni-regensburg.de.
Sascha EickmannDepartment of General Practice, University Hospital Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Roland RollerGerman Research Center for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI), Berlin, Germany.
Bilgin OsmanodjaDepartment of Nephrology and Medical Intensive Care, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Free University of Berlin, Berlin Institute of Health, Humboldt-University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Aljoscha BurchardtGerman Research Center for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI), Berlin, Germany.
Max TretterInstitute for Systematic Theology II (Ethics), Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany.
David SamhammerInstitute for Systematic Theology II (Ethics), Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany.
Peter DabrockInstitute for Systematic Theology II (Ethics), Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany.
Sebastian MöllerGerman Research Center for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI), Berlin, Germany.
Klemens BuddeDepartment of Nephrology and Medical Intensive Care, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Free University of Berlin, Berlin Institute of Health, Humboldt-University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Anne HerrmannDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Medical Sociology, University Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.

Funding

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung 01GP2202A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a promising tool to enhance medical practice and improve patient outcomes. However, introducing AI in interactions between patients, support persons (SPs) and physicians may create real or perceived information asymmetries and may not always be well accepted by end-users. To ensure that AI contributes to patient empowerment rather than undermining it, there is a need to better understand how AI-based tools affect communication, trust and decision-making in clinical encounters. Research should focus on identifying how AI can support patients' autonomy, trust and acceptance, how it may strengthen the role of SPs and promote transparent and ethically sound care. With these findings, applying a human-centered design with established technology acceptance frameworks (e.g. TAM, UTAUT) will be crucial to guide evidence-based implementation. Only by involving patients, SPs and physicians in AI development can these technologies unfold their full potential to deliver equitable, interpretable and patient-centered healthcare.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceClinical Decision-MakingEmpowermentPatient-Centered CarePatient ParticipationPhysician-Patient RelationsPower, PsychologicalHumans

Identifiers

PMID41299433
PMCPMC12659101

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.