ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Explainable AI in Healthcare: A Holistic View of Technical Approaches, Regulatory Frameworks, Reliable Clinical Implementation Insights and Limitations.
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Opaque deep learning models in biomedical applications pose challenges related to bias, fairness, and regulatory compliance. This paper presents a narrative review of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) in healthcare, specifically medical diagnosis, based on a targeted selection guided by a narrative review of recent literature, from 2019 to 2026, conducted on Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed databases. Covered topics comprise model interpretability, including image-based models and multimodal models, with special focus on large language models (LLMs) as a hard-to-interpret system. The review situates XAI within key regulatory frameworks, including the European Union (EU) Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act, highlighting how explainability supports legal requirements for transparency, auditability, and accountability. It examines widely used XAI methods such as Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP), Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (LIME), attention visualization, neurosymbolic reasoning, and others. These techniques help identify bias, detect spurious correlations, and analyze hallucinations in LLM deployment. They present an effort to, within a feasible range, minimize these events and increase confidence in the predictions provided, without dispensing with clear and proper validation within the medical classification loop. While emphasizing the benefits of XAI, the review also addresses key limitations, including limited explanation fidelity, cognitive overload, and the risk of misleading interpretations. Overall, it provides a concise synthesis of how explainability intersects with ethics, regulation, and system design to support oversight and transparency in AI healthcare. Additionally, it provides suggestions for the incorporation of technical XAI methods within current legislation and guidelines to provide a robust framework for AI model deployment.
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.