ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2025
A prompt framework for enhancing LLM-based explainability of medical machine learning models: an intensive care unit application.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundExplainable AI (XAI) techniques like SHAP provide valuable insights into machine learning model predictions by quantifying feature contributions. However, interpreting these quantitative outputs remains unintuitive for many clinicians, hindering their practical adoption in clinical decision-making. This exploratory feasibility study aims to propose and evaluate a prompting framework designed to guide large language models (LLMs) in generating consistent, clinically relevant explanations from SHAP values.
methodsWe developed a structured zero-shot prompting framework incorporating variable definitions, safety principles, and a three-step reasoning process; (1) key risk factors, (2) prediction-outcome reconciliation, (3) clinical recommendations. This framework guided GPT-4 to explain SHAP-based predictions from an ICU extubation failure model (trained on MIMIC-III data). The framework’s performance was assessed using quantitative consistency metrics (entropy, accuracy) and a qualitative clinician survey (n = 7).
resultsThe LLM achieved a fidelity of 0.783 and entropy of 0.226, indicating consistent structured reasoning. On a 5-point Likert scale, clinicians rated the LLM-generated explanations as helpful (mean: 3.94 ± 0.48) and safe (4.21 ± 0.68). However, critical care specialists assigned lower scores than non-critical care physicians (helpfulness: 3.48 vs. 4.29; safety: 3.45 vs. 4.79), suggesting domain-specific caution in perceived utility.
conclusionsA structured prompting framework shows feasibility in leveraging LLMs to enhance the clinical interpretability of SHAP explanations. This methodological approach warrants further investigation and refinement for broader clinical application.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.