ReviewiScience2026
A comprehensive review of explainable artificial intelligence in healthcare methods, evaluation, and clinical integration.
Review in iScience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence in biomarker discovery for diseases: diagnostic and therapeutic prospects.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Clinical Nutrition: Current Uses, Challenges, and Opportunities.Nutrients · 2026Review
- Peripheral blood biomarkers in PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy: distinguishing predictive from prognostic biomarkers.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) is essential for healthcare trust, yet a substantial gap persists between XAI techniques and actual clinical adoption. This review addresses this gap by framing clinical integration through three complementary lenses. First, we introduce a three-dimensional XAI classification framework-property, dependency, and scope-that moves beyond descriptive cataloging and serves as a practical guide for matching XAI approaches to specific clinical tasks. Second, we propose an integrated evaluation system that balances technical robustness, including fidelity, with measures of clinical utility such as workflow alignment and clinician confidence. Third, we analyze the divergent and often competing needs of key stakeholder groups to produce a role-characteristic mapping that clarifies what constitutes meaningful explainability in different clinical contexts. By positioning clinical integration as the center, this review outlines a pathway for translating XAI from methodological innovation to a dependable component of clinical decision support.
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.