ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2026
Explainability and Clinical Trust of Deep Learning in Glioblastoma Treatment Efficacy Prediction: A Comprehensive Framework.
Article in Journal of imaging informatics 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Glioblastoma (GBM) treatment response is highly heterogeneous. Predicting outcomes from pre-treatment MRI is a critical unmet need, yet the clinical adoption of "black box" deep learning (DL) models is hindered by a lack of transparency. Robust and holistic validation frameworks still need to be developed to allow clinical trust. A multi-layered eXplainable AI (XAI) pipeline was employed to dissect a previously developed deep learning model trained to predict GBM overall survival. First, the model's visual focus was qualitatively and quantitatively analysed. Second, the model's feature dependence was quantified using input ablation studies. Third, the depth at which class information becomes decodable was traced by linear probing of the internal representations. Finally, the clinical impact of the AI and its explanations was assessed in a multi-reader, multi-case study (37 patients, 4 readers, 3 phases, 444 observations) using Generalised Estimating Equations (GEE) and clustered bootstrapping. Analysis revealed a high-intensity heuristic: hyper-intense pixels at the skull periphery anchored "Long-Term" predictions, while the model defaulted to "Short-Term" based on tumour enhancement in its absence. The ablation study established this dependence, and linear probing pointed in the same direction. In the clinical study, AI assistance significantly improved expert accuracy (OR 1.598, p < 0.01) without artificially boosting confidence (p = 0.561). Importantly, the addition of XAI heatmaps was associated with a change in how experts used the AI score (interaction p < 0.01), and with fewer patients wrongly called long-term survivors. High predictive accuracy can mask reliance on low-level intensity heuristics. While superficial interpretation of saliency maps is perilous, multi-layered audits expose these shortcuts. Clinically, spatial heatmaps were associated with improved expert diagnostic accuracy and a shift in decision-making strategy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42870150What 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.