Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39132011›Full record

ArticleArtificial intelligence review2024

A review of evaluation approaches for explainable AI with applications in cardiology.

Ahmed M Salih, Ilaria Boscolo Galazzo, Polyxeni Gkontra, Elisa Rauseo, Aaron Mark Lee, Karim Lekadir, Petia Radeva, Steffen E Petersen, Gloria Menegaz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Artificial intelligence review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Multi-Level Explainable AI for ECG-Based Atrial Fibrillation Detection: Exploring LIME, SHAP, and Grad-CAM for Clinical Interpretation.Proceedings of the 2025 9th International Conference on Medical and Health Informatics. International Conference on Medical and Health Informatics (9th : 2025 : Kyoto, Japan) · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Ahmed M SalihWilliam Harvey Research Institute, NIHR Barts Biomedical Research Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, EC1M 6BQ UK.
Ilaria Boscolo GalazzoDepartment of Engineering for Innovative Medicine, University of Verona, S. Francesco, 22, 37129 Verona, Italy.
Polyxeni GkontraArtificial Intelligence in Medicine Lab (BCN-AIM), Departament de Matemàtiques i Informàtica, Universitat de Barcelona, Gran Via de les Corts Catalanes, 585, 08007 Barcelona, Spain.
Elisa RauseoWilliam Harvey Research Institute, NIHR Barts Biomedical Research Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, EC1M 6BQ UK.
Aaron Mark LeeWilliam Harvey Research Institute, NIHR Barts Biomedical Research Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, EC1M 6BQ UK.
Karim LekadirArtificial Intelligence in Medicine Lab (BCN-AIM), Departament de Matemàtiques i Informàtica, Universitat de Barcelona, Gran Via de les Corts Catalanes, 585, 08007 Barcelona, Spain.
Petia RadevaDepartament de Matemàtiques i Informàtica, Universitat de Barcelona, Gran Via de les Corts Catalanes, 585, 08007 Barcelona, Spain.
Steffen E PetersenWilliam Harvey Research Institute, NIHR Barts Biomedical Research Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, EC1M 6BQ UK.
Gloria MenegazDepartment of Engineering for Innovative Medicine, University of Verona, S. Francesco, 22, 37129 Verona, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) elucidates the decision-making process of complex AI models and is important in building trust in model predictions. XAI explanations themselves require evaluation as to accuracy and reasonableness and in the context of use of the underlying AI model. This review details the evaluation of XAI in cardiac AI applications and has found that, of the studies examined, 37% evaluated XAI quality using literature results, 11% used clinicians as domain-experts, 11% used proxies or statistical analysis, with the remaining 43% not assessing the XAI used at all. We aim to inspire additional studies within healthcare, urging researchers not only to apply XAI methods but to systematically assess the resulting explanations, as a step towards developing trustworthy and safe models. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10462-024-10852-w.

Indexed as

AICardiacEvaluationXAI

Identifiers

PMID39132011
PMCPMC11315784

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.