Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41044347›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Clinician perspectives on explainability in AI-driven closed-loop neurotechnology.

Laura Schopp, Georg Starke, Marcello Ienca

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Explainability in AI-enabled medical neurotechnology: a scoping review.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
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

3 authors.

Laura SchoppLaboratory of Ethics of AI and Neuroscience, Institute of History and Ethics in Medicine, School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, München, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-1168-4896
Georg StarkeLaboratory of Ethics of AI and Neuroscience, Institute of History and Ethics in Medicine, School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, München, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7428-2619
Marcello IencaLaboratory of Ethics of AI and Neuroscience, Institute of History and Ethics in Medicine, School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, München, Germany. marcello.ienca@tum.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8835-5444

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial Intelligence (AI) holds promise for advancing the field of neurotechnology and accelerating its clinical translation. AI-driven clinical neurotechnologies leverage the power of non-linear algorithms to analyze complex brain data and enable adaptive, closed-loop neurostimulation. Despite these promises, the integration of AI into clinical practice remains limited, with lack of explainability being commonly cited as one main obstacle. This raises the question of whether opacity and lack of explainability also hinder the adoption of AI in closed-loop medical neurotechnologies. We investigated the attitudes, informational needs and preferences of clinicians regarding AI-driven closed-loop neurotechnologies and explored what forms of explanation they consider necessary for clinical use. We conducted semi-structured expert interviews with twenty clinicians (including neurologists, neurosurgeons, and psychiatrists) from Germany and Switzerland. Using reflexive thematic analysis, we explored their understanding of and expectations for explainability in the context of AI-driven closed-loop neurotechnology systems. Clinicians consistently emphasized the importance of context-sensitive, clinically meaningful forms of explainability such as understanding what input data were used to train the system and how the output relates to clinically relevant outcomes. By contrast, detailed knowledge of the model's inner architecture or technical mechanics were of limited interest. Several participants specifically called for Explainable AI (XAI) techniques, particularly feature importance and relevance measures, to support their interpretation of system outputs. Our findings suggest that the clinical utility of AI-driven neurotechnologies can be improved by focusing on intuitive, user-centered and clinically meaningful forms of explainability rather than full algorithmic transparency. Designing systems that meet these pragmatic needs may help bridge the translational gap between AI development and clinical implementation.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceAlgorithmsAttitude of Health PersonnelBrainFemaleGermanyHumansMaleNeurologistsNeurosurgeonsClinical perspectiveExplainable artificial intelligenceNeurological diseaseNeurostimulationNeurotechnologyPsychiatric disorderSemi-structured expert interviews

Identifiers

PMID41044347
PMCPMC12494947

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.