ReviewFrontiers in systems biology2026
A generative AI multi-agent framework with integrated XAI governance for cancer diagnostics: from multi-omics interpretation to lifestyle risk stratification.
Review in Frontiers in systems biology, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cancer diagnostics is being reshaped by rapid advances in artificial intelligence, yet a persistent gap separates computational performance from clinical trust. Systematic reviews confirm that 83% of XAI studies in oncology excluded clinicians from development or evaluation, 87% lacked rigorous assessment of XAI explanations, and no universally accepted quality metrics for XAI outputs currently exist. Concurrently, generative AI (GenAI) is entering oncology at an unprecedented pace, yet it operates largely without formal interpretability governance. Aim: This review aimed to (i) synthesize the documented gaps in XAI applications for cancer diagnostics from peer-reviewed literature, (ii) evaluate the state and limitations of GenAI in oncological settings, and (iii) propose a conceptual framework of three GenAI-powered, XAI-governed agents designed to address these gaps within a systems biology context. Review Findings: A narrative synthesis of peer-reviewed literature published between 2020 and 2026 across PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science identified four critical, recurrent gaps: systematic exclusion of clinicians from XAI development, the absence of standardized evaluation metrics, incomplete cross-omics explanations, and the near absence of lifestyle-driven XAI models for cancer risk. GenAI is accelerating in oncology but introduces additional safety concerns, including hallucinations, non-deterministic outputs, and the illusion of transparency through chain-of-thought reasoning. Framework Proposal: Three specialized agents are proposed: a Multi-Omics XAI Agent (MO-XAI Agent) for cross-layer biological data interpretation, a Clinician Trust and Communication Agent (CTC Agent) for structured explanation translation and quality scoring, and a Lifestyle-Driven Cancer Risk Stratification Agent (LRS Agent) for modifiable risk factor analysis. Each agent uses a large language model as the computational backbone with SHAP, LIME, or graph-level XAI methods as governance layers. Conclusion: To our knowledge, this framework represents the first conceptual architecture to integrate agentic GenAI with systematic XAI governance for cancer diagnostics, offering a clinically grounded, biologically interpretable, and regulatorily aligned design specification for future implementation research.
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.