ReviewInternational journal of biomedical imaging2026
Clinician-Centric Explainable Artificial Intelligence Framework for Medical Imaging Diagnostics: A Systematic Review.
Review in International journal of biomedical imaging, 2026. 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.
- Clinician-Centric Explainable Artificial Intelligence Framework for Medical Imaging Diagnostics: A Systematic Review.International journal of biomedical imaging · 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
Medical imaging has evolved from conventional x-rays to advanced digital modalities, with artificial intelligence (AI), particularly deep learning, showing an increasingly central role in diagnostic support. This study presents a systematic literature review (SLR) of AI-driven medical imaging research focusing on classification-based models and explainability approaches in pneumonia detection. Using predefined inclusion criteria and PRISMA-guided screening, 95 studies were synthesized to identify dominant architectures, dataset trends, performance patterns, and persistent challenges. The analysis shows that convolutional neural networks (CNNs) and their variants remain the most frequently adopted models, accounting for the largest proportion of applications across x-ray, computed tomography scan (CT scan), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Reported diagnostic performance across reviewed studies commonly exceeded 90% in accuracy and AUC, with models such as DeepMediX, XNet, Wavelet-CNN, and RadCLIP demonstrating strong predictive capability in their respective experimental settings. However, the review identifies significant gaps in explainability, clinical workflow integration, ethical compliance, and trust evaluation. Thus, this paper proposes a clinician-centric explainable artificial intelligence (CC-XAI) framework derived from literature synthesis. The framework integrates multilevel explainability, contextual clinical alignment, and human-in-the-loop feedback mechanisms to bridge the gap between black-box AI systems and real-world clinical practice. Rather than introducing a new predictive model, the framework provides a structured design blueprint for embedding explainability into medical imaging diagnostics. The findings highlight the continued dominance of deep learning in medical imaging while emphasizing the urgent need for clinician-oriented XAI frameworks to support transparency, trust, and responsible AI deployment in healthcare.
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.