Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39267172›Full record

ArticleCritical care (London, England)2024

Should AI models be explainable to clinicians?

Gwénolé Abgrall, Andre L Holder, Zaineb Chelly Dagdia, Karine Zeitouni, Xavier Monnet

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 90 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
90citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

90 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

30 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Gwénolé AbgrallAP-HP, Service de Médecine Intensive-Réanimation, Hôpital de Bicêtre, DMU 4 CORREVE, Inserm UMR S_999, FHU SEPSIS, CARMAS, Université Paris-Saclay, 78 Rue du Général Leclerc, 94270, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France. gwenoleabgrall@gmail.com.
Andre L HolderDivision of Pulmonary, Critical Care, Allergy and Sleep Medicine, Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Zaineb Chelly DagdiaLaboratoire DAVID, Université Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, 78035, Versailles, France.
Karine ZeitouniLaboratoire DAVID, Université Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, 78035, Versailles, France.
Xavier MonnetAP-HP, Service de Médecine Intensive-Réanimation, Hôpital de Bicêtre, DMU 4 CORREVE, Inserm UMR S_999, FHU SEPSIS, CARMAS, Université Paris-Saclay, 78 Rue du Général Leclerc, 94270, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France.

Funding

Characterizing patients at risk for sepsis through Big Data (Supplement)K23GM137182 · NIGMS · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI HOLDER, ANDRE L · 2020 to 2023
$907k
Fondation pour la Recherche Médicale FDM202306017126NIGMS NIH HHS K23 GM137182
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the high-stakes realm of critical care, where daily decisions are crucial and clear communication is paramount, comprehending the rationale behind Artificial Intelligence (AI)-driven decisions appears essential. While AI has the potential to improve decision-making, its complexity can hinder comprehension and adherence to its recommendations. "Explainable AI" (XAI) aims to bridge this gap, enhancing confidence among patients and doctors. It also helps to meet regulatory transparency requirements, offers actionable insights, and promotes fairness and safety. Yet, defining explainability and standardising assessments are ongoing challenges and balancing performance and explainability can be needed, even if XAI is a growing field.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceClinical Decision-MakingCritical CareHumansPhysiciansAlgorithmic biasClinical decision-makingExplainable artificial intelligenceFairnessGenerative artificial intelligenceInterpretabilityPatient autonomyRegulatory complianceTransparency

Identifiers

PMID39267172
PMCPMC11391805

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.