Explainable Artificial Intelligence in Alzheimer’s Disease Classification: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Context: Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the medical domain has achieved remarkable results on various metrics primarily due to recent advancements in computational capabilities. However, AI models used for Computer Aided Diagnosis (CAD) have limited acceptance and trust due to their typical {Blackbox} nature. Consequently, explainable AI (XAI) is needed to justify the trustworthiness of the machine's predictions. Approach: In this work, we undertake a systematic review based on PRISMA guidelines on research articles investigating Alzheimer's Disease (AD) prediction with XAI for the past decade. The review was driven by carefully formulated research questions (RQ) which helped categorize AI models into different XAI methods(Post-hoc, Ante-hoc, Model-Agnostic, Model-Specific, etc) and frameworks (LIME, SHAP, GradCAM, LRP, etc.). Summary: This categorisation provides broad coverage of the interpretation spectrum from intrinsic (model-specific, ante-hoc models) to complex patterns (model-agnostic, post-hoc models) and by taking local explanations to a global scope. Additionally, the study categorizes merit in terms of different forms of interpretation to provide in-depth insight into the factors that support the clinical diagnosis of AD. Finally, limitations and open research challenges are outlined, and possible prospects are presented.
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 | 0.008 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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".