ArticleBMJ digital health & AI2026
Explainable temporal graph-based CNNs for predicting hip replacement risk using EHR data.
Article in BMJ digital health & AI, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To develop and compare four explainable artificial intelligence methods to visualise the influence of electronic health records (EHRs) on predicting hip replacement risk. Methods and analysis: We used a pretrained temporal graph-based convolutional neural networks (TGCNN) model to generate explainable graph visualisations through four methods: the original gradient-weighted class activation mapping (Grad-CAM) applied to graphs, a modified Grad-CAM using absolute weights (Grad-CAM (abs)), sliding element-wise multiplication of feature maps with patient graph inputs (fm-act) and of 3D convolutional neural networks filters/kernels with patient graph inputs (edge-act). These methods visually explain the TGCNN model's predictions regarding a person's risk of needing a hip replacement within 5 years, based on clinical codes from EHRs. We evaluated these models through human qualitative analysis studies, sensitivity quantification, edge detection bias and sparsity. Results: The edge-act methods performed best in terms of graph sparsity and model sensitivity. Subgraph analysis indicated that prescriptions highly influenced predictions. Clinicians found the visualisations useful for explaining model predictions but too complex for clinical decision-making, particularly with extensive patient EHRs. Conclusions: The fm-act and Grad-CAM (abs) methods led to graphs with zero sparsity; these graphs could be difficult to interpret if the patient has a long EHR history. The edge-act median method had the highest sparsity; therefore, this method might be the easiest to interpret for long EHR histories. We improved the explainability of hip replacement risk predictions using four post hoc methods on the TGCNN model. Further refinement could enhance their utility in clinical decision-making.
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.