Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41193683›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Leveraging ChatGPT and explainable AI for enhancing clinical decision support.

Radwa El Shawi, Leila Jamel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Radwa El ShawiInstitute of Computer Science, University of Tartu, 51009, Tartu, Estonia. radwa.elshawi@ut.ee.
Leila JamelDepartment of Information Systems, College of Computer and Information Sciences, Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University, P. O. Box 84428, 11671, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) excel in many natural language processing tasks. However, their direct application to tabular, domain-specific clinical data remains challenging, as they lack innate mechanisms for reasoning over structured numerical features. This paper presents HealthAI-Prompt, a novel framework that systematically adapts LLMs for tabular clinical decision-making-specifically, predicting diabetes risk-through contextual prompts that combine detailed task descriptions with domain knowledge. Our domain knowledge integration leverages insights from high-performing machine learning models optimized via automated machine learning (AutoML) technique, together with local explanations for representative examples. These explanations, generated by multiple methods, are rigorously evaluated using fidelity, stability, and monotonicity metrics, ensuring reliability and clinical validity. The most accurate explanations are then embedded into the prompts, enabling the LLM to interpret structured features in a clinically meaningful way without fine-tuning. This approach uniquely bridges AutoML-driven predictive modeling with LLM-based reasoning over tabular inputs, improving predictive accuracy, and transparency in healthcare AI. Through comparative analysis of HealthAI-Prompt and various AutoML techniques under diverse data conditions, we offer insights into the impact of different prompt engineering strategies on model performance. As part of our evaluation, we also include Chain-of-Thought prompting as a baseline to contextualize the gains of our proposed method.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceClinical Decision-MakingDecision Support Systems, ClinicalMachine LearningGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansNatural Language Processing

Identifiers

PMID41193683
PMCPMC12589629

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.