ReviewTechnology in cancer research & treatment
Overcoming the Black Box Challenge: Building Trust in Artificial Intelligence Algorithms in Oncology.
Review in Technology in cancer research & treatment. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Molecular basis of precision nutrition: Food components, microbiome-derived metabolites, and multi-omics modeling.Food chemistry. Molecular sciences · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rising global cancer rates are projected to significantly increase by 2050, highlighting the urgent need for improved scalable prevention, early detection, and personalized therapy tools. Artificial intelligence (AI) has demonstrated significant capabilities in diverse oncology tasks, leveraging high-dimensional data from medical imaging, molecular profiles, and electronic health records for applications in radiology, digital pathology, genomics, prognostication, and treatment selection. Nevertheless, the clinical adoption of most AI systems is still limited by the black box issue, that is, prediction without clear explanation, which, in turn, limits the confidence and accountability of clinicians as well as their ability to communicate with patients. In this review, we searched sources over the years (2015-2025) from PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science for evidence on explainable AI (XAI) methodologies that may provide greater interpretability and trust in oncologic practice. Local interpretable model-agnostic explanation and Shapley additive explanations (LIME and SHAP) are model-agnostic methods that offer local and global feature attribution and help clinicians to understand the main influential factors behind model predictions. The complementary approaches, such as Gradient-weighted Class Activation Mapping (Grad-CAM), Integrated Gradients and DeepLift, also bring the explainability to image- and genomics-based processes, whereas more recent strategies (eg, Anchors, Prototypical Part Network (ProtoPNet), and contrastive or counterfactual explanations) also focus on enhancing stability and clinical utility. Irrespective of such developments, several issues continue to be experienced, including computational load, inconsistency in explanations, domain transfer, deployment into clinical processes, bias, privacy issues, and changing regulatory requirements. In general, XAI can transform oncology AI to become clinically interpretable, transparent prediction of outcomes, which will make its application safer by adhering to strict validation procedures, human control, and patient-centered communication. By providing a comprehensive and clinically grounded overview, this review aims to support researchers, clinicians, and stakeholders in advancing trustworthy and transparent AI deployment in oncology.
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.