Abstract
Inherently interpretable machine learning (IML) models provide valuable insights for clinical decision-making but face challenges when features have missing values. Classical solutions like imputation or excluding incomplete records are often unsuitable in applications where values are missing at test time. In this work, we conducted a survey with 71 clinicians from 29 trauma centers across France, including 20 complete responses to study the interaction between medical professionals and IML applied to data with missing values. This provided valuable insights into how missing data is interpreted in clinical machine learning. We used the prediction of hemorrhagic shock as a concrete example to gauge the willingness and readiness of the participants to adopt IML models from three classes of methods. Our findings show that, while clinicians value interpretability and are familiar with common IML methods, classical imputation techniques often misalign with their intuition, and that models that natively handle missing values are preferred. These results emphasize the need to integrate clinical intuition into future IML models for better human-computer interaction.