Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42712305›Full record

ArticleBMJ digital health & AI2026

Explainable temporal graph-based CNNs for predicting hip replacement risk using EHR data.

Zoe Hancox, David Wong, Sarah R Kingsbury, Philip G Conaghan, Andrew Clegg, Samuel D Relton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Zoe HancoxUniversity of Leeds, Leeds, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0473-5971
David WongLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8117-9193
Sarah R KingsburyUniversity of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Philip G ConaghanUniversity of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Andrew CleggLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Samuel D ReltonLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Artificial intelligenceDecision Support Systems, ClinicalElectronic Health RecordsPrimary Health Care

Identifiers

PMID42712305
PMCPMC13528391

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.