An interventional study of Traditional AI Lecture Module and XAI-Enhanced Interactive Module (CerViD-MultiModal) in Medical Education, sponsored by University of Liberia. Completed at 1 site in Liberia. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-08-04.
Sponsored by University of Liberia · Not applicable, Interventional, and Health services research
This study evaluates whether Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) explanations integrated into medical training improve AI literacy, reduce cognitive workload, and enhance learner trust compared to traditional lecture methods. Third-year medical students participated in a randomized controlled trial assessing the CerViD-MultiModal diagnostic framework during a neuroimaging diagnostic module focused on fornix atrophy in early and late mild cognitive impairment
The study utilized a two-phase sequential explanatory design with mixed methodologies. In Phase 1 (Technical Development), the CerViD-MultiModal model was developed and validated using neuroimaging data from 100 Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) subjects to classify early vs. late mild cognitive impairment via fornix morphometry features. In Phase 2 (Educational Intervention), a randomized controlled trial was conducted with 120 third-year medical students enrolled in the clinical neuroscience rotation at the University of Liberia. Participants were randomized into two equal groups (n=60 per group): Control Group: Completed a 45-minute traditional lecture module using static text and bar charts. XAI-Enhanced Group: Completed an interactive 45-minute module featuring SHAP summary charts, LIME patient-specific explanations, and interactive force graphs. Post-intervention electronic assessments evaluated four primary outcomes: AI Literacy Score (0-100 scale), System Usability Scale (SUS, 0-100 scale), perceived cognitive workload using the NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX, 0-100 scale), and Confidence in AI Interpretation (1-5 scale)
3,872 studies on the registry are indexed under Cognitive Dysfunction; 1,119 are open to participants now.
This study's enrollment of 120 is above the median of 64 across 2,794 interventional studies indexed under Cognitive Dysfunction.
Browse Cognitive Dysfunction studies →This is the only study on the registry with University of Liberia as lead sponsor.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.
You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.
Informed consent
Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.
You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.
Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
Participants complete a 45-minute traditional lecture module on AI in neuroimaging using static text and bar charts
Other: Traditional AI Lecture Module
Participants complete an interactive 45-minute lecture module supplemented with CerViD-MultiModal visual XAI explanations (SHAP summary charts and LIME patient-specific explanations
Other: XAI-Enhanced Interactive Module (CerViD-MultiModal)
Standard educational instruction delivered via traditional slides and static charts explaining neuroimaging AI outputs.
Standard educational instruction delivered via traditional slides and static charts explaining neuroimaging AI outputs.
Also known as: CerViD-MultiModal Framework, SHAP and LIME Educational Module
AI Literacy Score
Continuous score (0-100 scale) measuring conceptual knowledge, practical application, ethical awareness, and critical evaluation of AI systems in medicine
Time frame: Immediately post-intervention (Day 1)
System Usability Scale (SUS) Score
Standardized 10-item scale assessing user perception of system usability, converted to a 0-100 overall score
Time frame: Immediately post-intervention (Day 1)
Plan to share: Yes — De-identified individual participant data collected during the study, including post-intervention assessment scores for AI literacy, System Usability Scale (SUS) ratings, NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) workload metrics, and confidence scores, will be made available upon reasonable request. All direct and indirect identifiers will be removed prior to data sharing to preserve participant privacy.
Supporting information: Study protocol, Statistical analysis plan, Analytic code
Time frame: De-identified individual participant data and supporting documents will become available within 6 months following publication of the study results in a peer-reviewed journal and will remain accessible for up to 3 years.
Access criteria: Data and supporting materials will be shared with qualified academic researchers and clinical educators whose formal proposal has been approved by the research team. Access is granted solely for scientific research and meta-analytic purposes. Requests should be submitted via email directly to the Principal Investigator.
Ran from May 2026 to primary completion in May 2026, 0 months.
Of 1,442 non-industry interventional studies with no phase under Cognitive Dysfunction, half reached primary completion within 27 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 13 and three quarters within 51. This study's 0 months is below that.
Counting every sponsor, half of 1,511 studies reached it within 27 months; a quarter within 12 and three quarters within 50.
How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.
This study is completed, as verified in Jul 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.