ReviewToxics2026
Explainable Deep Learning for Research on the Synergistic Mechanisms of Multiple Pollutants: A Critical Review.
Review in Toxics, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The synergistic control of multiple pollutants is critically challenged by complex nonlinear interactions, strong spatiotemporal heterogeneity, and the difficulty of tracing causal drivers. Deep learning offers high predictive power but suffers from the "black-box" problem, limiting its acceptance in environmental decision-making. Explainable Deep Learning (XDL) integrates physical mechanisms with interpretable algorithms, achieving both prediction accuracy and explanatory transparency. This review systematically evaluates the effectiveness and limitations of XDL in analyzing multi-pollutant interactions, with a comparative focus on atmospheric and aquatic environments. Key techniques, including SHAP, attention mechanisms, and physics-informed neural networks, are examined for their roles in synergistic monitoring, source apportionment, and regulatory optimization. The main findings reveal that: (1) XDL, particularly the "tree model + SHAP" paradigm, has become a dominant tool for quantifying driving factors, yet most attributions remain correlational rather than causal; (2) physics-informed fusion (soft vs. hard constraints) improves physical consistency but faces unresolved conflicts between data and physical laws, with current models lacking a conflict detection mechanism; (3) cross-media comparison shows a unified technical logic of "physical mechanism guidance + post hoc feature attribution", but atmospheric applications lead in embedding advection-diffusion constraints, while aquatic research excels in spatial topology modeling via graph neural networks; (4) critical bottlenecks include the lack of causal inference, uncertainty-unaware interpretations, and data scarcity. Future directions demand a shift from correlation-only to causal-aware attribution, from blind fusion to conflict-detecting systems, and from no evaluation standards to domain-specific validation benchmarks. XDL is poised to transform multi-pollutant governance from experience-driven to intelligence-driven approaches, provided that verifiable interpretability and physical consistency become core design principles.
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.