Evidence mapPaperPMID 42449434Full record

ReviewChinese medicine2026

Beyond transparency: why Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) need explainable artificial intelligence (XAI).

Wanting Zheng, Yuanyuan Tong, Jinjian Huang, Ling Zhu, Jiaqi Chai

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Wanting ZhengInstitute of Science,Technology and Humanities, Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Yuanyuan TongCollege of Philosophy, Nankai University, Tianjin, 300350, China.
Jinjian HuangInstitute of Information on Traditional Chinese Medicine, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, 100700, China.
Ling ZhuInstitute of Information on Traditional Chinese Medicine, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, 100700, China. jjzhuling@163.com.
Jiaqi ChaiInstitute of Basic Research in Clinical Medicine, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, 100700, China. chaijq1109@163.com.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China Grant No. 82374623
6 · The paper itself

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

Dual-layer opacityEpistemologyExplainable artificial intelligenceKnowledge graphsLarge language modelsMultimodal diagnosisSemantic translationSyndrome differentiationTraditional Chinese Medicine

Identifiers

PMID42449434
PMCPMC13366969

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.