Cited by 52Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

Unveiling Explainable AI in Healthcare: Current Trends, Challenges, and Future Directions

Open access
Noor, Abdul Aziz, Manzoor, Awais, Mazhar Qureshi, Muhammad Deedahwar, Qureshi, M. Atif, Rashwan, Wael·2025·WIREs Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery

Abstract

This overview investigates the evolution and current landscape of eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) in healthcare, highlighting its implications for researchers, technology developers, and policymakers. Following the PRISMA protocol, we analyzed 89 publications from January 2000 to June 2024, spanning 19 medical domains, with a focus on Neurology and Cancer as the most studied areas. Various data types are reviewed, including tabular data, medical imaging, and clinical text, offering a comprehensive perspective on XAI applications. Key findings identify significant gaps, such as the limited availability of public datasets, suboptimal data preprocessing techniques, insufficient feature selection and engineering, and the limited utilization of multiple XAI methods. Additionally, the lack of standardized XAI evaluation metrics and practical obstacles in integrating XAI systems into clinical workflows are emphasized. We provide actionable recommendations, including the design of explainability‐centric models, the application of diverse and multiple XAI methods, and the fostering of interdisciplinary collaboration. These strategies aim to guide researchers in building robust AI models, assist technology developers in creating intuitive and user‐friendly AI tools, and inform policymakers in establishing effective regulations. Addressing these gaps will promote the development of transparent, reliable, and user‐centred AI systems in healthcare, ultimately improving decision‐making and patient outcomes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/widm.70018

Cites

113 of 113 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Tools designed to optimize computational metrics without attending to clinical, regulatory, and behavioral dimensions reproduce the same failures that have limited XAI adoption to date.

    “Tools designed to optimize computational metrics without attending to clinical, regulatory, and behavioral dimensions reproduce the same failures that have limited XAI adoption to date”

    From A generative AI multi-agent framework with integrated XAI governance for cancer diagnostics: from multi-omics interpretation to lifestyle risk stratification (2026) · cites this paper as Noor et al., 2025

    Section 6.3 says that XAI evaluation overlooks user studies and that clinician trust and acceptance require user-centred explanations; the discussion of barriers to clinical integration also identifies workflow compatibility and clinician training as adoption concerns. The paper mentions regulatory requirements, but these passages do not establish that tools focused on computational metrics reproduce the same clinical, regulatory, and behavioral failures that have limited adoption. (LLM, conf=0.81)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The lack of standardized evaluation metrics and practical obstacles in integrating XAI systems into clinical workflows are the two most consistently emphasized research gaps in the field.

    “the lack of standardized evaluation metrics and practical obstacles in integrating XAI systems into clinical workflows are the two most consistently emphasized research gaps in the field”

    From A generative AI multi-agent framework with integrated XAI governance for cancer diagnostics: from multi-omics interpretation to lifestyle risk stratification (2026) · cites this paper as Noor et al., 2025

    The paper’s 'Broader Use of XAI Methods and Reliable Solutions' section identifies both the lack of standardized XAI evaluation metrics and barriers to clinical integration as research gaps; its conclusion also highlights both. It does not establish that these are the two most consistently emphasized gaps in the field, and describes clinical integration as outside the primary focus of its research questions. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Feder, G., M. Eccles, R. Grol, C. Griffiths, and J. Grimshaw. 1999. "Using Clinical Guidelines." British Medical Journal 318, no. 7185: 728-730.
  2. IEEE Xplore Digital Library. 2024. "IEEE Xplore Digital Library." https:// ieeex plore. ieee. org.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Noor, A. A., Manzoor, A., Mazhar Qureshi, M. D., Qureshi, M. A., & Rashwan, W.
Affiliations
  • Technological University Dublin (IE)
  • eXplainable Analytics Group, Faculty of Bussiness Technological University of Dublin Dublin Ireland
Corresponding author
Qureshi, M. Atif
Venue
WIREs Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2025-05-11
Volume
15
Issue
2
ISSN
  • 1942-4787 (ISSN-L)
  • 1942-4795
OpenAlex
W4410280591
Cited by
52
References
112
Citations by year
2026: 43 · 2025: 9
FWCI
20.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Arrow - TU Dublin (Technological University Dublin) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
Funders
ADAPT - Centre for Digital Content Technology (13/RC/2106_P2)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
explainable AI, artificial intelligence in healthcare, XAI evaluation metrics, clinical decision support, diagnostic imaging, clinical text, feature selection, data preprocessing, neurology, cancer, AI regulation, AI transparency

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review