ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Evaluating Explainability: A Framework for Systematic Assessment of Explainable AI Features in Medical Imaging.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence in Vascular Surgery: A Literature Review Focusing on Current Applications, Imaging Advances and Future Prospects.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Eye-Tracking Evidence That Verifiable Explanations Support Visual Evidence Checking in AI-Assisted Chest Radiograph Interpretation.Journal of eye movement research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Explainability features are intended to provide insight into the internal mechanisms of an Artificial Intelligence (AI) device, but there is a lack of evaluation techniques for assessing the quality of provided explanations. We propose a framework to assess and report explainable AI features in medical images. Our evaluation framework for AI explainability is based on four criteria that relate to the particular needs in AI-enabled medical devices: (1) Consistency quantifies the variability of explanations to similar inputs; (2) plausibility estimates how close the explanation is to the ground truth; (3) fidelity assesses the alignment between the explanation and the model internal mechanisms; and (4) usefulness evaluates the impact on task performance of the explanation. Finally, we developed a scorecard for AI explainability methods in medical imaging that serves as a complete description and evaluation to accompany this type of device. We describe these four criteria and give examples on how they can be evaluated. As a case study, we use Ablation CAM and Eigen CAM to illustrate the evaluation of explanation heatmaps on the detection of breast lesions on synthetic mammographies. The first three criteria are evaluated for task-relevant scenarios. This framework establishes criteria through which the quality of explanations provided by medical devices can be quantified.
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.