Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41808457›Full record

ArticleAnnals of palliative medicine2026

"Black box" artificial intelligence for mortality prediction: a mixed-methods study of palliative care team, patient, and caregiver perspectives.

Beatrice Bridge, Ahmed Y Alasmar, Lauren Gunn-Sandell, Regina M Fink, Stacy M Fischer, Elizabeth Juarez-Colunga, Eric G Campbell, Matthew DeCamp

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of palliative medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Beatrice BridgeSchool of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz, Aurora, CO, USA.
Ahmed Y AlasmarCenter for Bioethics and Humanities, University of Colorado Anschutz, Aurora, CO, USA.
Lauren Gunn-SandellDepartment of Biostatistics and Informatics, Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado Anschutz, Aurora, CO, USA.
Regina M FinkSchool of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz, Aurora, CO, USA; College of Nursing, University of Colorado Anschutz, Aurora, CO, USA.
Stacy M FischerDivision of General Internal Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz, Aurora, CO, USA.
Elizabeth Juarez-ColungaDepartment of Biostatistics and Informatics, Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado Anschutz, Aurora, CO, USA.
Eric G CampbellCenter for Bioethics and Humanities, University of Colorado Anschutz, Aurora, CO, USA; Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz, Aurora, CO, USA.
Matthew DeCampCenter for Bioethics and Humanities, University of Colorado Anschutz, Aurora, CO, USA; Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz, Aurora, CO, USA.

Funding

A mixed-methods study of the nature, extent and consequences of artificial intelligence (AI) for individualized treatment planning in end-of-life and palliative care (EOLPC)R01NR019782 · NINR · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI DECAMP, MATTHEW WAYNE · 2022 to 2025
$2.6M
NINR NIH HHS R01 NR019782
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNew artificial intelligence (AI)-based mortality prediction algorithms could support both patients' prognostic awareness and person-centered palliative care. Although they promise accuracy, their outputs can be hard to explain-potentially affecting whether patients and care teams use them. To investigate perspectives on the explainability of AI algorithms in palliative care, we conducted a sequential mixed-methods study.

methodsWe interviewed 30 palliative care physicians and nurses; 15 social workers, spiritual care providers, psychologists, and others; and 35 patients and caregivers at four U.S. academic centers (total n=80). The 53 interviews containing data on explainability were analyzed thematically to understand reasons for concern or unconcern. We randomly sampled and surveyed n=2,500 palliative care physicians (overall adjusted response rate, 32.6%). The 537 surveys with complete responses on explainability items were analyzed descriptively; a multivariable model examined predictors of concern.

resultsAmong 53 interviewees, 18 expressed only concern about black box AI-based prognostication, 17 expressed only unconcern, and 18 interviewees expressed mixed sentiments. Reasons for concern related to: data transparency, mistrust of machines or their creators, patient-clinician communication, bias, and accuracy. Reasons for unconcern related to: inexplicability not unique to AI, greater accuracy, not using AI in isolation, trust in science, and being evidence-based. Notably, "accuracy" and "trust" appeared in both. Overall, 75% of physicians (n=396/528) reported being at least "moderately concerned" about unexplainable AI algorithms. Male physicians were less likely to be strongly concerned [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.57; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.36, 0.89; P=0.01] about explainability. Those who perceived AI mortality prediction to be inaccurate were more likely to be concerned (aOR 2.06; 95% CI: 1.27, 3.41; P=0.003).

conclusionsOur findings suggest that if a black box model is perceived as accurate, there may be less demand for explainability. Nevertheless, in palliative care-where communication is key-explainability may still be central. Future efforts should seek to create models that are both accurate and explainable at the point-of-care.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceAttitude of Health PersonnelCaregiversPalliative CareAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrediction AlgorithmsPrognosisUnited StatesArtificial intelligence (AI)black boxethicsexplainabilitypalliative care

Identifiers

PMID41808457
PMCPMC13632713

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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.