ReviewExploration of targeted anti-tumor therapy2026
Application of explainable artificial intelligence integrating with electronic health record in oncology.
Review in Exploration of targeted anti-tumor therapy, 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.
- 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
- Mortality prediction with adjuvant tamoxifen in breast cancer: Machine learning-integrated explainable artificial intelligence and Bayesian model results.ADMET & DMPK · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) models applied to electronic health records (EHRs) have substantial potential to improve oncology care across diagnosis, prognosis, treatment selection, and trial recruitment. However, opacity of many high-performing models limits clinician trust, regulatory acceptance, and safe deployment. Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) methods aim to make model behavior understandable and actionable in clinical contexts. The present perspective summarizes current XAI approaches applied to EHR-based oncology tasks, identifies key challenges in evaluation, reproducibility, clinical utility, and equity, and proposes pragmatic recommendations and research directions to accelerate safe adoption in oncology. Common XAI categories used with EHR data include feature importance/interaction methods, intrinsically interpretable models, attention mechanisms, dimensionality reduction, and knowledge distillation or rule extraction. Tree-based models with SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) explanations dominate recent EHR studies. Other interpretable strategies, such as generalized additive models and rule sets, appear in settings where transparency is prioritized. Gaps include inconsistent reporting, scarce formal evaluation of explanations for clinical utility, limited reproducibility for data and code availability, inadequate external validation, and insufficient consideration of fairness and equity that these issues are particularly important in oncology, where heterogeneity and stakes are high. Overall, integrating XAI with EHR-driven oncology models is promising but underdeveloped, which requires further progress by multi-stakeholder evaluation frameworks, reproducible pipelines, prospective and multicenter validations, and equity-aware design. The field should prioritize clinically meaningful explanations beyond ranking features and study how explanations affect clinician decision-making and patient outcomes.
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.