ArticleBMJ open2026
Exploring tuberculosis physicians' preferences for AI explainability in China: a protocol for a discrete choice experiment.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionArtificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used in tuberculosis (TB) diagnosis, but its clinical adoption depends not only on accuracy but also on physicians' trust and understanding of AI outputs. Explainable AI (XAI) has been proposed to address this challenge, but limited evidence exists on which explanation features are most valued by physicians in TB diagnostic settings. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) offer a structured method to elicit physicians' preferences and quantify trade-offs among explainability attributes. This protocol describes a DCE designed to examine TB physicians' preferences for AI explainability to inform user-centred AI development and implementation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Six attributes were identified through a comprehensive literature review, one-on-one semi-structured interviews with TB physicians and expert consultations. A D-efficient experimental design was used to construct choice sets. TB physicians in Hubei Province, China, will be recruited using a stratified random sampling approach. Preference data will be analysed using multinomial logit and mixed logit models to estimate the relative importance of attributes and explore preference heterogeneity across physician subgroups. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained from the Ethics Committee of Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital. All participants will provide written informed consent prior to participation. Study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journal publications, conference presentations and academic forums, with the aim of informing the design and implementation of XAI systems for TB diagnosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.