ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2026
NEXIM: A Nash Equilibrium-Based Framework for Stable Explainable AI in Medical Applications.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 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
Reliable explanations are important for trustworthy medical applications of artificial intelligence (AI), but attribution-based explanations can vary across model randomization and small analytic changes. We present NEXIM (Nash Equilibrium-based Explainability and Interpretability Model), implemented here as an accuracy-constrained, equilibrium-inspired model-selection framework that jointly evaluates held-out prediction error, explanation stability, and cross-model connectivity. The implementation evaluated ten GradientBoostingRegressor models per prediction horizon, differing only by random seed (0-9), using a fixed 75/25 patient split. Kernel SHAP attribution vectors were compared using Spearman rank correlation, and graph connectivity summarized whether each model belonged to a dense explanation-similarity region. Candidate models within 0.02 Montreal Cognitive Assessment points of the best root mean squared error (RMSE) were ranked using a multiplicative Explanation Equilibrium Score. In longitudinal Parkinson's Progression Markers Initiative data, NEXIM selected the RMSE-optimal model at the one- and three-year horizons. At the two-year horizon, it selected Model 4 rather than the RMSE-only Model 8, increasing scaled stability from 0.8757 to 0.8847 and normalized graph connectivity from 0.889 to 1.000 while increasing RMSE by only 0.0014. The two models retained the same top-20 feature set but differed modestly in feature order, illustrating that NEXIM primarily acted as a reproducibility screen rather than identifying clinically contradictory explanations. Stability and consensus are treated as reproducibility criteria, not evidence of causal faithfulness, clinical usefulness, or improved patient outcomes. NEXIM may therefore serve as a governance checkpoint for model refresh and documentation, but external validation, stronger model-family baselines, and prospective clinical evaluation remain necessary.
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.