The application of explainable artificial intelligence in the prediction, diagnoses, treatment, and management of chronic diseases: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Study objectives: This systematic review analyzes the applications of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) algorithms in chronic disease care, focusing on prediction, diagnosis, treatment, and management. The study examines prevalent XAI approaches across different chronic conditions and evaluates research gaps. Methods: The review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis 2020 guidelines, analyzing relevant articles from 6 databases to identify and evaluate XAI implementations in chronic disease care. A protocol for this systematic review was not registered anywhere prior to publication. Results: Three primary XAI techniques emerged as dominant: SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) (46.5%), Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (25.8%), and Gradient-weighted Class Activation Mapping (Grad-CAM) (12.0%). Disease prediction dominated the applications (86.2%), with SHAP being preferred for structured clinical data and Grad-CAM showing strength in medical imaging. Implementation varied significantly across different chronic conditions, with standardized diagnostic criteria and structured data receiving more attention. Discussion: The analysis revealed an imbalance in healthcare applications, with sophisticated prediction models but limited treatment planning and disease management implementations. Key challenges included insufficient handling of complex multimodal data types and limited data volume. The need for extensive clinical validation in real-world settings was identified as crucial for establishing practical utility. Conclusion: While XAI shows promise in chronic disease healthcare, advancement requires expanding beyond prediction into treatment and management domains, developing robust approaches for complex medical data, and implementing larger-scale studies. Success depends on collaboration between AI researchers, healthcare professionals, legal experts, and policymakers, alongside clear regulatory guidelines and governance frameworks balancing innovation with patient privacy.
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 | 0.017 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".