Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42870150›Full record

ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2026

Explainability and Clinical Trust of Deep Learning in Glioblastoma Treatment Efficacy Prediction: A Comprehensive Framework.

Romain Andres, Noémie N Moreau, Loïse Dessoude, Loïc Le Henaff, Fernand Missohou, Dinu Stefan, Alexis Desmonts, Romain Herault, Aurélien Corroyer-Dulmont

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

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

9 authors.

Romain AndresMedical Physics Department, Centre François Baclesse, Caen, 14000, France.
Noémie N MoreauMedical Physics Department, Centre François Baclesse, Caen, 14000, France.
Loïse DessoudeRadiation Oncology Department, Centre François Baclesse, Caen, 14000, France.
Loïc Le HenaffRadiology Department, Centre François Baclesse, Caen, 14000, France.
Fernand MissohouRadiation Oncology Department, Centre François Baclesse, Caen, 14000, France.
Dinu StefanRadiation Oncology Department, Centre François Baclesse, Caen, 14000, France.
Alexis DesmontsMedical Physics Department, Centre François Baclesse, Caen, 14000, France.
Romain HeraultUniversité Caen Normandie, ENSICAEN, CNRS, Normandie Univ, GREYC UMR 6072, Caen, 14000, France.
Aurélien Corroyer-DulmontMedical Physics Department, Centre François Baclesse, Caen, 14000, France. a.corroyer-dulmont@baclesse.unicancer.fr.

Funding

Région Normandie Booster IA
6 · The paper itself

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

Deep learningExplainabilityGBMInterpretabilityMRITreatment efficacy

Identifiers

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.