Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41853058›Full record

ArticleBreathe (Sheffield, England)2026

Decoding the "black-box": explainable artificial intelligence towards trustworthy advancement in respiratory medicine.

Guido Marchi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Breathe (Sheffield, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. 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

1 author.

Guido MarchiPulmonology Unit, Cardiothoracic and Vascular Department, University Hospital of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-6122-7792

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly applied in respiratory medicine, offering potential advances in diagnostics, treatment guidance and patient monitoring. However, widespread clinical adoption remains limited due to the opaque "black-box" nature of many algorithms, which challenges clinicians' trust and hinders integration into routine practice. Explainable AI (XAI; methods and frameworks that render AI outputs interpretable and transparent) has emerged as a promising approach. By providing insights into algorithmic reasoning alongside predictive performance, XAI can support clinician evaluation, facilitate informed decision-making, and enhance accountability in patient care. This Viewpoint discusses the potential applications of XAI across respiratory medicine, highlighting its role in improving transparency, fostering clinician engagement and supporting integration of AI into clinical workflows. Beyond technical considerations, successful adoption of XAI requires cultural and educational shifts, including training programmes, interdisciplinary collaboration, patient engagement, and adherence to ethical and regulatory standards. XAI also holds potential in supporting shared decision-making, translating complex algorithmic outputs into understandable information for patients. By bridging advanced computational tools with clinical reasoning, XAI may help respiratory medicine move towards responsible, patient-centred and transparent AI implementation. Continued research, education, and collaboration are essential to realise its potential and ensure AI serves as a reliable partner in delivering high-quality respiratory care.

Identifiers

PMID41853058
PMCPMC12993742

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.