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.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence for the Prediction of Preeclampsia: Current Evidence, Comparison with Conventional Screening Models, and Future Perspectives.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Peripheral blood biomarkers in PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy: distinguishing predictive from prognostic biomarkers.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Overcoming the Black Box Challenge: Building Trust in Artificial Intelligence Algorithms in Oncology.Technology in cancer research & treatmentReview
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
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
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.