An observational study in Artificial Intelligence Perception and Attitude, sponsored by University of Oxford. Enrolling by invitation at 1 site in United Kingdom. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-10-21.
Sponsored by University of Oxford · Observational
Background:
AI (artificial intelligence) tools are increasingly used to help clinicians interpret medical images such as X-rays, scans, skin photographs and eye images. In most cases the AI does not work alone: a clinician makes the final decision, using the AI as support. Before these tools are used in the NHS, they must be tested to show they are safe and helpful. They are usually tested in a "reader study", where several clinicians each interpret the same set of images, sometimes with the AI's help and sometimes without, so performance can be compared. These studies tend to focus on whether the diagnosis was correct. However, accuracy alone may not measure everything that matters. For example, what happens when the AI gets it wrong, whether clinicians rely on it too much or too little, or how the tool affects efficiency. At present there is no agreed standard for what these studies should measure, so important things are often missed and studies are hard to compare.
Aim:
The aim of this study is to find out, by talking to people with different perspectives, which outcomes are important when evaluating AI tools that help clinicians read medical images.
Objectives:
The output will be a list of important candidate outcomes, which will feed into a future project to agree a recommended set of outcomes for these studies (a "core outcome set").
Research value:
Without agreement on what to measure, studies of AI tools may overlook outcomes that matter, and their results are difficult to compare and combine. Hearing directly from the people affected, rather than relying only on what previous studies happened to measure, helps ensure the recommended set reflects people's priorities. This will lead to better-designed studies and AI tools that are safer and more useful in practice.
Outline of the research:
The investigators will interview 24-30 people who have a stake in how these tools are tested and used, including clinicians, researchers, developers, people involved in regulation, and patients and members of the public. Interviews will last 45-60 minutes and will take place using Microsoft Teams. The investigators will ask people what they think is important to measure and why, and then explore which of those things could realistically be measured in a reader study.
Risks/benefits:
This is a low-risk study, with no direct benefits to participants. The topics concern methodological matters rather than people's personal health, so personal distress is not anticipated. Taking part is voluntary: interviewees can skip any question or stop at any time. The wider benefit will be better testing of AI imaging tools in future.
Impact:
The interviews will inform the candidate list of outcomes for the future project and the investigators will publish and present the findings.
406 studies on the registry are indexed under Behavior; 167 are open to participants now.
This study's planned enrollment of 30 is below the median of 250 across 81 observational studies indexed under Behavior.
Browse Behavior studies →University of Oxford is the lead sponsor of 812 studies on the registry; 119 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
The investigators expect to involve approximately 24-30 participants in total, each taking part in a single interview. Participants will be purposively sampled across the following stakeholder groups, with roughly equal numbers. A key priority is to achieve a rich spread of perspectives within and across the groups.
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.
Membership of one of the following stakeholder groups:
Exclusion Criteria:
Qualitative themes and subthemes
Time frame: Day 1 (interview date) through study completion (1 year)
Number of participants per stakeholder group
Time frame: Day 1
Participant age
Time frame: Day 1
Participant sex
Time frame: Day 1
Participant professional background
Profession and self-reported experience
Time frame: Day 1
Documents are hosted by the registry — open the source record to download them.
Plan to share: No — Qualitative interview data may include sensitive personal health, commercial, or regulatory information.
Start is estimated for Oct 2026; primary completion for Jul 2027, 9 months later.
How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.
From the registry record's own update history. This site started tracking changes on Sep 25, 2026; for anything earlier, see the record history on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.
No contact was published for this record. The registry link below has the sponsor’s details.
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.