ArticleResearch square2026
Uncertainty-Aware Explainable AI for Pancreatic Cysts: Identifying Deep Learning Vulnerabilities and Ensuring Safe Clinical Triage in IPMN Management.
Article in Research square, 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
28 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Despite growing interest in AI for pancreatic cyst management, no prior study has systematically investigated how lesion characteristics influence model behavior or provided a comprehensive explainability analysis in IPMN malignancy risk stratification. We present the first multi-center study integrating explainable AI with uncertainty quantification to evaluate how cyst type, size, and location affect deep learning performance in IPMN malignancy prediction. Our retrospective study analyzed 170 IPMNs from seven centers using a radiomics-deep learning fusion model. Cases were stratified by dysplasia grade, IPMN type, size, and location; with model interpretability assessed using SHAP, LIME, Grad-CAM, and uncertainty quantification. Overall accuracy was 67.1%, with model uncertainty lower for correct versus incorrect predictions (0.72 vs 0.78, p < 0.001). On subgroup analysis: Low-Risk lesion accuracy exceeded High-Risk (81.3% vs. 42.9%, p < 0.001), BD accuracy was inversely correlated with cyst size while MD remained stable, and body and whole-pancreas cysts stratified more accurately than tail cysts (77.8%, 76.6% vs. 47.8%). AI models face significant, previously uncharacterized performance drops when evaluating complex high-risk IPMNs. Our study shows that integrating uncertainty quantification can successfully flag unreliable predictions, enabling a selective-prediction framework where clinicians can confidently rely on AI for low-risk, low-uncertainty lesions while deferring high-uncertainty cases to expert review.
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.