Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41479795›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in oncology2025

Explainable artificial intelligence in pancreatic cancer prediction: from transparency to clinical decision-making.

Wardah Alharbi, Asma Abdullah Alfayez

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

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. Article
  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

2 authors.

Wardah AlharbiDepartment of AI and Bioinformatics, King Abdullah International Medical Research Centre (KAIMRC), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Asma Abdullah AlfayezDepartment of AI and Bioinformatics, King Abdullah International Medical Research Centre (KAIMRC), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

clinical decision supportexplainable artificial intelligencemachine learningmodel interpretabilitypancreatic cancerprecision oncology

Identifiers

PMID41479795
PMCPMC12753400

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.