Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41469544›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2025

Machine learning models explanations as interpretations of evidence: a theoretical framework of explainability and its implications on high-stakes biomedical decision-making.

Matteo Rizzo, Alberto Veneri, Matteo Marcuzzo, Alessandro Zangari, Andrea Albarelli, Claudio Lucchese, Marco Salvatore Nobile, Cristina Conati

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
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

8 authors.

Matteo RizzoDepartment of Environmental Sciences, Informatics and Statistics, Ca' Foscari University, Dorsoduro 3246, 30123, Venice, Italy. matteo.rizzo@unive.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9723-211X
Alberto VeneriDepartment of Environmental Sciences, Informatics and Statistics, Ca' Foscari University, Dorsoduro 3246, 30123, Venice, Italy.
Matteo MarcuzzoDepartment of Environmental Sciences, Informatics and Statistics, Ca' Foscari University, Dorsoduro 3246, 30123, Venice, Italy.
Alessandro ZangariDepartment of Environmental Sciences, Informatics and Statistics, Ca' Foscari University, Dorsoduro 3246, 30123, Venice, Italy.
Andrea AlbarelliDepartment of Environmental Sciences, Informatics and Statistics, Ca' Foscari University, Dorsoduro 3246, 30123, Venice, Italy.
Claudio LuccheseDepartment of Environmental Sciences, Informatics and Statistics, Ca' Foscari University, Dorsoduro 3246, 30123, Venice, Italy.
Marco Salvatore NobileDepartment of Environmental Sciences, Informatics and Statistics, Ca' Foscari University, Dorsoduro 3246, 30123, Venice, Italy.
Cristina ConatiDepartment of Computer Science, University of British Columbia, ICICS/CS Building 201-2366 Main Mall, V6T 1Z4, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Funding

European Commission "Interconnected Nord-Est Innovation Ecosystem (iNEST)" project and received funding from the European Union Next-GenerationEU - National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP) - MISSION 4 COMPONENT 2, INVESTIMENT N. ECS00000043 - CUP N. H43C22000540006?European Commission NRRP DM 352/2022
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Explainable Artificial Intelligence, or XAI, is a vibrant research topic in the artificial intelligence community. It is raising growing interest across methods and domains, especially those involving high-stakes decision-making, such as the biomedical sector. Much has been written about the subject, yet XAI still lacks shared terminology and a framework capable of providing structural soundness to explanations, a crucial need for decisions that impact healthcare. In our work, we address these issues by proposing a novel definition of explanation that synthesizes insights from the existing literature. We recognize that explanations are not atomic, but rather the combination of evidence stemming from the model and its input-output mapping, along with the human interpretation of this evidence. Furthermore, we fit explanations into the properties of faithfulness (i.e., the explanation is an accurate description of the model’s inner workings and decision-making process) and plausibility (i.e., how much the explanation seems convincing to the user). Our theoretical framework simplifies the operationalization of these properties and provides new insights into common explanation methods that we analyze through case studies. We explore the impact of our framework in the sensitive domain of biomedicine, where XAI can play a central role in generating trust by balancing faithfulness and plausibility.

Indexed as

Decision MakingMachine LearningModels, TheoreticalArtificial IntelligenceHumansBiomedicineExplainabilityInterpretabilityMachine learning

Identifiers

PMID41469544
PMCPMC12754877

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.