ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2026
Clinically Actionable Explainable AI in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: Endpoints, Calibration, and External Validation. Reply to Pagnoni et al. Toward Clinically Actionable Explainable AI in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: Endpoints, Calibration, and External Validation. Comment on "Ledziński et al. Personalized Medicine in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: Utilizing Artificial Intelligence for Death Prevention.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
29 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present Reply addresses the commentary by Pagnoni et al. on our recent study exploring explainable artificial intelligence (AI) for mortality risk prediction in pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). We acknowledge the importance of several key issues raised by the authors, including endpoint selection, calibration, decision thresholds, and external validation, all of which are central to translating AI-based prognostic models into clinical practice. Our original endpoint, defined as death by the next follow-up visit, was driven by the structure of nationwide registry data and reflects real-world clinical workflows, although we recognize the advantages of predefined time horizons and time-to-event approaches for future analyses. We discuss the trade-off between sensitivity and precision, emphasizing our deliberate prioritization of minimizing false-negative classifications in high-risk patients, while acknowledging the need for structured clinical pathways to manage false-positive results. We further address calibration and threshold selection, underscoring the necessity of additional clinical studies to support intervention-oriented recommendations. The role of phenotypic determinants and modifiable risk factors in enhancing personalization is highlighted as a key direction for future model development. We reaffirm the value of SHAP-based explainability for improving model transparency, while recognizing the need for continued refinement and clinical validation. Finally, we emphasize the strengths and challenges inherent to registry-based analyses, the importance of external validation, and the need for methodologically sound comparisons with established risk calculators. Overall, this exchange underscores the critical role of interdisciplinary collaboration in advancing clinically actionable and interpretable AI solutions for PAH.
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.