Survey of Explainable AI Techniques in Healthcare
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) with deep learning models has been widely applied in numerous domains, including medical imaging and healthcare tasks. In the medical field, any judgment or decision is fraught with risk. A doctor will carefully judge whether a patient is sick before forming a reasonable explanation based on the patient's symptoms and/or an examination. Therefore, to be a viable and accepted tool, AI needs to mimic human judgment and interpretation skills. Specifically, explainable AI (XAI) aims to explain the information behind the black-box model of deep learning that reveals how the decisions are made. This paper provides a survey of the most recent XAI techniques used in healthcare and related medical imaging applications. We summarize and categorize the XAI types, and highlight the algorithms used to increase interpretability in medical imaging topics. In addition, we focus on the challenging XAI problems in medical applications and provide guidelines to develop better interpretations of deep learning models using XAI concepts in medical image and text analysis. Furthermore, this survey provides future directions to guide developers and researchers for future prospective investigations on clinical topics, particularly on applications with medical imaging.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".