ReviewAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
Shifting from black box decisions to informed decision-making in using artificial intelligence to analyze prostate MRI.
Review in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is central to the detection and localization of clinically significant prostate cancers. However, its interpretation is time-consuming and variable. Artificial intelligence (AI) tools for prostate MRI are rapidly emerging, with their performance approaching that of expert readers in select settings, although robust external validation in unselected real-world cohorts remains incomplete. Moreover, many deep learning models are limited in terms of transparency; that is, the "black box" problem hinders trust, safe deployment, and regulatory acceptance. This review summarizes the core concepts of interpretability and explainable artificial intelligence (XAI), highlights commonly used approaches to explain the output of AI models, and discusses how the lack of transparency hinders clinical deployment and how this can be addressed using standardized reporting frameworks. Ultimately, the purpose of this review is to draw attention to the pressing need for XAI and to spark interest and awareness of how standardized frameworks may help us to shift from "black box" decisions to informed decision-making in clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42364039What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.