SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Explainable artificial intelligence in medical ultrasound: a WoSCC-based bibliometric analysis, evidence map, and Scopus concordance assessment.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) is now used across medical ultrasound, yet it remains unclear whether the field has moved beyond producing explanation displays. This review examined whether the recent expansion of ultrasound XAI has been matched by explanation-specific evaluation and clinically relevant validation, and whether the leading bibliometric patterns are consistent across databases. Methods: Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) and Scopus were searched for records published from 2010 to 2026 and indexed through July 9, 2026. After cross-database deduplication, 1,745 unique records were assessed and database-specific Broad and nested Core XAI datasets were constructed. WoSCC supported bibliometric mapping and structured evidence coding; Scopus and union datasets were used to assess incremental coverage and cross-database concordance. Results: The searches retrieved 2,706 records and yielded 640 Union Broad and 514 Union Core XAI records; the primary WoSCC datasets contained 469 and 387 records, respectively. Publications rose sharply after 2023, with 2026 representing an incomplete year. SHAP (186/387, 48.1%) and CAM/Grad-CAM (79/387, 20.4%) predominated. An explanation output was reported or displayed without an identified evaluation procedure in 280/387 studies (72.4%), while no explicit explanation-evaluation information was identified in the reviewed evidence sources for 90/387 studies (23.3%); only 17 (4.4%) reported expert/reader, quantitative faithfulness or stability, or clinical-usefulness evaluation. External validation was reported in 62/387 records (16.0%), prospective design in 21/387 (5.4%), and multicenter design in 63/387 (16.3%). Country and cleaned-keyword ranks were highly concordant across databases (Spearman rho = 0.90 and 0.91), while Scopus added 36.5% Broad and 32.8% Core XAI records relative to WoSCC. Conclusion: Ultrasound XAI has expanded rapidly, but growth in the literature has not been matched by comparable maturity in reported explanation evaluation or clinically relevant validation. Progress will require testable explanation claims and evaluation under realistic acquisition and clinical conditions.
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.