ArticleLa Radiologia medica2026
Examining explainable artificial intelligence in TNM staging with PET-CT: a user-centred observation study.
Article in La Radiologia medica, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeArtificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly proposed as a solution to improve efficiency in radiology and nuclear medicine, particularly in the context of workforce shortages. However, adoption of AI-based clinical decision support systems (AI-CDSS) remains slow, due to limited model transparency. Explainable AI (XAI) may improve clinician acceptance by supporting oversight and trust. This study evaluated the impact of different XAI explanation types on radiologists' willingness to adopt AI systems.
methodsTen nuclear medicine radiologists from eight UK institutions performed lung cancer TNM staging using whole-body PET/CT scans supported by a simulated AI-CDSS. Three explanation approaches were assessed: input feature attribution, high-level concept explanations and global algorithmic transparency. Adoption likelihood and explanation usefulness were rated using Likert scales and analysed with nonparametric sign tests. Semi-structured interviews were additionally analysed through thematic evaluation supported by large language model-assisted coding with human verification.
resultsAll explanation approaches significantly increased radiologists' willingness to adopt the AI system compared to a black-box model (p < 0.05). Explanations were consistently considered useful in enabling participants to confirm or challenge AI staging recommendations (p < 0.001). Qualitative findings highlighted the importance of clinical relevance, error detection and decision support value. A trade-off between explanation depth and usability was identified as a key factor influencing preferences.
conclusionIncorporating XAI into nuclear medicine CDSS enhances radiologists' acceptance and provides clinically meaningful information for oversight of AI recommendations, in accordance with the EU AI Act. These findings support the role of XAI in facilitating integration of AI tools into diagnostic workflows.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42440231What 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.