ArticleFrontiers in physiology2026
A systematic evaluation of explainable AI methods for high-dimensional transcriptome-based cancer survival prediction.
Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Generalizable and Interpretable Framework for Molecular Subtype Classification of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Integrating Conformal Uncertainty Quantification and Consensus-Based Explainable Artificial Intelligence Across Multiple Cohorts.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- A generative AI multi-agent framework with integrated XAI governance for cancer diagnostics: from multi-omics interpretation to lifestyle risk stratification.Frontiers in systems biology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) holds the promise to compensate for the "black-box" nature of deep learning which impedes transcriptome-based cancer survival prediction. However, there is a lack of systematic benchmarking XAI frameworks tailored for high-dimensional survival data. To bridge this gap, we systematically evaluated six representative XAI methods in three main categories: gradient-based, propagation-based, and perturbation-based approaches by using a Self-Normalizing Neural Network (SNN) as the baseline survival model. 6,248 samples across 15 cancer types from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) was analysed in this evaluation with a unified framework we developed. The evaluation metrics encompassed three key dimensions: prognostic factor enrichment (univariate Cox regression significance), biological consistency (supported by four authoritative databases, including OpenTargets), and explanation stability (Kuncheva Index). Among the six XAI methods, we find that DeepSHAP achieved the best overall performance, identifying the highest number of statistically significant prognostic factors while maintaining superior explanation stability; LRP (Layer-wise Relevance Propagation) showed slightly lower prognostic specificity but the highest consensus with biological databases in capturing general cancer genes, making it suitable for validating biological plausibility. In contrast, the perturbation-based method, PFI (Permutation Feature Importance) exhibited systematic failure and extremely low stability due to its inability to handle feature collinearity in high-dimensional transcriptomic data. Furthermore, we identified explanation stability as a robust proxy for the biological validity of the XAI. Collectively,
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.