ReviewFrontiers in oncology2025
Explainable artificial intelligence in pancreatic cancer prediction: from transparency to clinical decision-making.
Review in Frontiers in oncology, 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.
- LANTERN-XGB: An Interpretable Multi-Modal Machine Learning for Improving Clinical Decision-Making in Lung Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- A generative AI multi-agent framework with integrated XAI governance for cancer diagnostics: from multi-omics interpretation to lifestyle risk stratification.Frontiers in systems biology · 2026Review
- Explainable deep learning approaches and clinical insights for cancer biomarker identification.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Pancreatic cancer (PC) remains among the most lethal malignancies worldwide, with a persistently low 5-year survival rate despite advances in systemic therapies and surgical innovation. Machine learning (ML) has emerged as a transformative tool for early detection, prognostic modelling, and treatment planning in PC, yet widespread clinical use is constrained by the "black box" nature of many models. Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) offers a pathway to reconcile model accuracy with clinical trust, enabling transparent, reproducible, and clinically meaningful predictions. Methods: We reviewed literature from 2020-2025, focusing on ML-based studies in PC that incorporated or discussed XAI techniques. Methods were grouped by model architecture, data modality, and interpretability framework. We synthesized findings to evaluate the technical underpinnings, interpretability outcomes, and clinical relevance of XAI applications. Results: Across 21 studies on ML in PC, only three studies explicitly integrated XAI, primarily using SHAP and SurvSHAP. These methods helped identify key biomarkers, comorbidities, and survival predictors, while enhancing clinician trust. XAI approaches were categorized by staging (ante-hoc vs. Conclusions: XAI has the potential to serve as a cornerstone for advancing transparent, trustworthy ML in PC prediction. By clarifying model reasoning, XAI enhances clinical interpretability and regulatory readiness. This review provides a technical and clinical synthesis of current XAI practices, positioning explainability as essential for translating ML innovations into actionable oncology tools.
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.