Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40997754›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2025

Explainable AI-Driven Analysis of Radiology Reports Using Text and Image Data: Experimental Study.

Muhammad Tayyab Zamir, Safir Ullah Khan, Alexander Gelbukh, Edgardo Manuel Felipe Riverón, Irina Gelbukh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. 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

5 authors.

Muhammad Tayyab Zamir *Centro de Investigación en Computación (CIC), Instituto Politécnico Nacional (IPN), Ciudad de México, CDMX, Mexico.ORCID 0009-0000-9071-8937
Safir Ullah Khan *Department of Cell Biology, Center for Research and Advanced Studies of the National Polytechnic Institute, Ciudad de México, CDMX, Mexico.ORCID 0000-0002-1285-8907
Alexander GelbukhCentro de Investigación en Computación (CIC), Instituto Politécnico Nacional (IPN), Ciudad de México, CDMX, Mexico.ORCID 0000-0001-7845-9039
Edgardo Manuel Felipe RiverónCentro de Investigación en Computación (CIC), Instituto Politécnico Nacional (IPN), Ciudad de México, CDMX, Mexico.ORCID 0000-0002-9828-3568
Irina GelbukhCentro de Investigación en Computación (CIC), Instituto Politécnico Nacional (IPN), Ciudad de México, CDMX, Mexico.ORCID 0000-0001-7295-5752

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being integrated into clinical diagnostics; yet, its lack of transparency hinders trust and adoption among health care professionals. The explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) has the potential to improve the interpretability and reliability of AI-based decisions in clinical practice.

objectiveThis study evaluates the use of XAI for interpreting radiology reports to improve health care practitioners' confidence and comprehension of AI-assisted diagnostics.

methodsThis study used the Indiana University chest x-ray dataset containing 3169 textual reports and 6471 images. Textual data were being classified as either normal or abnormal by using a range of machine learning approaches. This includes traditional machine learning models and ensemble methods, deep learning models (long short-term memory network), and advanced transformer-based language models (GPT-2, T5, LLaMA-2, and LLaMA-3.1). For image-based classifications, convolutional neural networks, including DenseNet121 and DenseNet169, were used. Top-performing models were interpreted using XAI methods SHAP (Shapley Adaptive Explanations) and Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations to support clinical decision making by enhancing transparency and trust in model predictions.

resultsThe LLaMA-3.1 model achieved the highest accuracy of 98% in classifying the textual radiology reports. Statistical analysis confirmed the model's robustness, with Cohen κ (k=0.981) indicating near-perfect agreement beyond chance. Both the chi-square and Fisher exact tests revealed a highly significant association between the actual and predicted labels (P<.001). Although the McNemar Test yielding a nonsignificant result (P=.25) suggests a balanced class performance, the highest accuracy of 84% was achieved in the analysis of imaging data using the DenseNet169 and DenseNet121 models. To assess explainability, Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations and SHAP were applied to the best-performing models. These models consistently highlighted that the medical-related terms such as "opacity," "consolidation," and "pleural" are clear indications for abnormal findings in textual reports.

conclusionsThe research underscores that explainability is an essential component of any AI systems used in diagnostics and is helpful in the design and implementation of AI in the health care sector. Such an approach improves the accuracy of the diagnosis and builds confidence in health workers, who in the future will use XAI in clinical settings, particularly in the application of AI explainability for medical purposes.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceRadiologyHumansMachine LearningNeural Networks, ComputerReproducibility of Resultsartificial intelligenceexplainable AILIMELocal Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanationsnatural language processingradiologySHAPShapley Adaptive Explanations

Identifiers

PMID40997754
PMCPMC12569488

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.