ReviewChinese medicine2026
Beyond transparency: why Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) need explainable artificial intelligence (XAI).
Review in Chinese medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) with Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) is rapidly expanding, creating new opportunities for digital diagnosis, syndrome differentiation, prescription recommendation, multimodal clinical support, and knowledge mining. The central obstacle to this integration, however, lies beyond predictive performance and stems from a fundamental epistemological mismatch between data-driven AI and theory-driven TCM. Contemporary AI systems often operate through opaque statistical representations, whereas TCM depends on holistic, relational, and interpretive reasoning centered on syndrome differentiation and disease-mechanism inference. Consequently, explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) is required not merely to improve transparency but to serve as an epistemic interface that enables semantic translation between machine-discovered patterns and TCM clinical reasoning. This review argues that AI-TCM integration should be understood as an epistemological integration problem rather than a purely technical one. To address this problem, we introduce two conceptual lenses: the dual-layer opacity framework, which captures the superposition of algorithmic opacity and the theoretical opacity of TCM knowledge, and the semantic translation framework, which conceptualizes XAI as the process of mapping computational features and reasoning traces onto clinically meaningful and theory-consistent TCM concepts. On this basis, we critically synthesize major methodological pathways of TCM-XAI, including feature-attribution methods, visual explanation, intrinsically interpretable models, knowledge-guided reasoning, and large-language-model-based explanation infrastructures such as chain-of-thought and graph-based retrieval-augmented generation. Beyond methodological synthesis, we identify four core criteria for high-quality explanation in TCM: faithfulness, clinical relevance, theoretical coherence, and cultural integrity. We show that the principal challenges of TCM-XAI extend beyond accuracy and include annotation uncertainty, explanation validation, privacy-preserving interpretability, fairness across populations, and the risk of epistemic reduction or cultural misinterpretation. Finally, we outline a future research agenda centered on causal inference, neuro-symbolic reasoning, multimodal explanation benchmarks, clinician-centered evaluation, and regulatory standards for trustworthy TCM-AI systems. We argue that XAI should be understood not as a technical add-on but as the epistemic infrastructure required to build clinically trustworthy, culturally coherent, and scientifically robust AI ecosystems for Traditional Chinese Medicine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.