ReviewBMC infectious diseases2026
A survey of explainable AI applications in infectious disease diagnosis.
Review in BMC infectious diseases, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI), particularly deep learning, has shown significant promise in accelerating the diagnosis of infectious diseases. However, the inherent "black box" nature of deep learning is a major barrier to clinical adoption, preventing trust and accountability. Explainable AI (XAI) tries to address this problem by adding transparency to model decision-making. This paper presents a comprehensive scoping review of XAI applications in infectious disease diagnosis based on literature published between 2023 and 2025. We review studies of major diseases, including COVID-19, tuberculosis, malaria, monkeypox, and dengue, categorizing them by data modality (e.g., imaging, tabular) and the XAI techniques employed (e.g., SHAP, LIME, Grad-CAM). We conclude that XAI methods are effective in identifying clinically relevant features, such as key biomarkers from lab results and pathological regions in medical images, thereby aligning model reasoning with established clinical knowledge. Despite this progress, significant challenges persist, including poor generalizability from small, single-center datasets, the computational overhead of post-hoc methods, and a gap between technical explanations and clinical utility. We outline future directions that should be taken, including the need for standardized evaluation metrics, multi-center validation, and clinician-centered XAI design to facilitate the responsible integration of AI into clinical practice.Clinical trial numberNot applicable.
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.