Nyrup, R. & Robinson, D. Explanatory pragmatism: a context-sensitive framework for explainable medical AI. Ethics Inf. Technol. 24, 13 (2022).
Abràmoff, M. D., Tobey, D. & Char, D. S. Lessons learned about autonomous AI: finding a safe, efficacious, and ethical path through the development process. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 214, 134–142 (2020).
Froomkin, A. M., Kerr, I. R. & Pineau, J. When AIs outperform doctors: confronting the challenges of a tort-induced over-reliance on machine learning. Minnesota Law Rev. 61, 33–100 (2019).
Mansi, G., Karusala, N. & Riedl, M. O. Legally-informed explainable AI. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2504.10708 (2025).
Price, W. N., Gerke, S. & Cohen, I. G. Potential liability for physicians using artificial intelligence. JAMA. 322, 1765–1766 (2019).
Lipton, Z. C. The mythos of model interpretability. Commun. ACM 61, 36–43 (2018).
Chari, S. et al. Explanation ontology: a model of explanations for user-centered AI. In Proc. 19th International Semantic Web Conference, Part II (eds Pan, J. Z. et al.) 228–243 (Springer, 2020).
Guidotti, R. et al. A survey of methods for explaining black box models. ACM Comput. Surv. 51, 1–42 (2018).
Sun, Q., Akman, A. & Schuller, B. W. Explainable artificial intelligence for medical applications: a review. ACM Trans. Comput. Healthcare 6, 17 (2025).
Corti, L. et al. “It is a moving process”: understanding the evolution of explainability needs of clinicians in pulmonary medicine. In Proc. CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Vol. 441 1–21 (ACM, 2024).
Zajkac, H. D. et al. Towards clinically useful AI: from radiology practices in global south and north to visions of AI support. ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact. 32, 20 (2025).
Xie, Y., et al. CheXplain: enabling physicians to explore and understand data-driven, AI-enabled medical imaging analysis. In Proc. CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 1–13 (ACM, 2020).
Galsgaard, A. et al. Artificial intelligence and multidisciplinary team meetings; a communication challenge for radiologists’ sense of agency and position as spider in a web? Eur. J. Radiol. 155, 110231 (2022).
Yang, Q., Steinfeld, A. & Zimmerman, J. Unremarkable AI: fitting intelligent decision support into critical, clinical decision-making processes. In Proc. CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Vol. 238 1–11 (ACM, 2019).
Babic, B. & Cohen, I. G. The algorithmic explainability ‘bait and switch’. Minnesota Law Rev. 108, 857–909 (2023).
Desai, D. R. & Kroll, J. A. Trust but verify: a guide to algorithms and the law. Harvard J. Law Technol. 31, 1–64 (2017).
Ross, C. & Herman, B. How Medicare Advantage plans use AI to cut off care for seniors. STAT https://www.statnews.com/2023/03/13/medicare-advantage-plans-denial-artificial-intelligence (2024).
Metcalf, J. et al. Taking algorithms to courts: a relational approach to algorithmic accountability. In Proc. ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency 1450–1462 (ACM, 2023).
Kuo, T.S. et al. Understanding frontline workers’ and unhoused individuals’ perspectives on AI used in homeless services. In Proc. CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Vol. 860 1–17 (ACM, 2023).
Phillips, J. A. Algorithms deny humans health care. The Regulatory Review https://www.theregreview.org/2025/03/18/phillips-algorithms-deny-humans-health-care (2025).
Jin, A. & Salehi, N. (Beyond) reasonable doubt: challenges that public defenders face in scrutinizing AI in court. In Proc. CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Vol. 467 1–19 (ACM, 2024).
Mansi, G. & Riedl, M. O. Recognizing lawyers as AI creators and intermediaries in contestability. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2409.17626 (2024).
Karusala, N. et al. Understanding contestability on the margins: implications for the design of algorithmic decision-making in public services. In Proc. CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Vol. 478 1–16 (ACM, 2024).
Warren, R. B. & Salehi, N. Trial by file formats: exploring public defenders’ challenges working with novel surveillance data. In Proc. ACM on Human-Computer Interaction Vol. 6 1–26 (ACM, 2022).
Gerke, S. et al. The need for a system view to regulate artificial intelligence/machine learning-based software as medical device. npj Digit. Med. 3, 53 (2020).
Chan, B. Applying a common enterprise theory of liability to clinical AI systems. Am. J. Law Med. 47, 351–385 (2021).
Price, W. N. Distributed governance of medical AI. SMU Sci. Technol. Law Rev. 25, 2 (2022).
Artificial intelligence and machine learning in software as a medical device. FDA https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/software-medical-device-samd/artificial-intelligence-and-machine-learning-software-medical-device (2023).
Sundholm, B. Trust the process. Arizona State Law J. 56, 1404–1469 (2024).
Maliha, G. et al. Artificial intelligence and liability in medicine: balancing safety and innovation. Milbank Quart. 99, 629–647 (2021).
DAIL—The Database of AI Litigation. George Washington University Law https://blogs.gwu.edu/law-eti/ai-litigation-database (2025).
Health Litigation Tracker. George Washington University Law https://litigationtracker.law.georgetown.edu (2025).
Research citations and mentions—AI, Algorithmic and Automation Incidents and Controversies database. AIAAIC https://www.aiaaic.org/ (2025).
Pellegrino, E. D. The commodification of medical and health care: the moral consequences of a paradigm shift from a professional to a market ethic. J. Med. Philos. 24, 243–266 (1999).
Oliva, J. Regulating healthcare coverage algorithms. Indiana Law J. 100, 1861–1889 (2025).
Alfrink, K. et al. Contestable AI by design: towards a framework. Minds Mach. 33, 613–639 (2023).
Chromik, M., Eiband, M., Völkel, S. & Buschek, D. Dark patterns of explainability, transparency, and user control for intelligent systems. In Proc. Joint Proceedings of the ACM IUI Workshops 1–6 (ACM, 2019).
Ehsan, U. & Riedl, M. O. Explainability pitfalls: beyond dark patterns in explainable AI. Patterns 5, 100971 (2024).
Sun, J. et al. Investigating explainability of generative AI for code through scenario-based design. In Proc. 27th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces 212–228 (ACM, 2022).
Ehsan, U. & Riedl, M. O. Human-centered explainable AI: towards a reflective sociotechnical approach. In Proc. 22nd International Conference On Human-Computer Interaction 449–466 (Springer, 2020).
Ehsan, U. et al. Human-centered explainable AI (HCXAI): reloading explainability in the era of large language models (LLMs). In Proc. Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Vol. 477 1–6 (ACM, 2024).
Kaur, H. et al. Sensible AI: Re-imagining interpretability and explainability using sensemaking theory. In Proc. ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency 702–714 (ACM, 2022).
Chen, S. et al. Inclusive emotion technologies: addressing the needs of d/Deaf and hard of hearing learners in video-based learning. In Proc. ACM on Human-Computer Interaction Vol. 9 1–27 (ACM, 2025).
Ehsan, U. et al. Human-centered explainable AI (HCXAI): coming of age. In Proc. Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Vol. 353 1–7 (ACM, 2023).
Vines, J., Clarke, R., Wright, P., McCarthy, J. & Olivier, P. Configuring participation: on how we involve people in design. In Proc. SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 429–438 (ACM, 2013).
van Otterlo, M. & Atzmueller, M. On requirements and design criteria for explainability in legal AI. In Proc. 18th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL ’21) 60–68 (ACM, 2018).
Oswald, M. Something bad might happen: lawyers, anonymization and risk. In XRDS: Crossroads, The ACM Magazine for Students Vol. 20 22–26 (ACM, 2013).
Spaa, A. et al. Understanding the boundaries between policymaking and HCI. In Proc. CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Vol. 84 1–15 (ACM, 2019).
Leofante, F. et al. Contestable AI needs computational argumentation. In Proc. 21st International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning Vol. 21 888–896 (2024).
Oregon drops ‘unfair’ child abuse safety at screening tool. AIAAIC https://www.aiaaic.org/aiaaic-repository/ai-algorithmic-and-automation-incidents/oregon-dhs-safety-at-screening-tool (2022).
Regulator raises doubts about Babylon Health Triage System. AIAAIC https://www.aiaaic.org/aiaaic-repository/ai-algorithmic-and-automation-incidents/regulator-raises-doubts-about-babylon-health-triage-system (2024).