Cited by 87Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationMachine Learning in Healthcare

Essential properties and explanation effectiveness of explainable artificial intelligence in healthcare: A systematic review

Open access
Jung, Jinsun, Lee, Hyungbok, Jung, Hyunggu, Kim, Hyeoneui·2023·Heliyon

Abstract

Background: Significant advancements in the field of information technology have influenced the creation of trustworthy explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) in healthcare. Despite improved performance of XAI, XAI techniques have not yet been integrated into real-time patient care. Objective: The aim of this systematic review is to understand the trends and gaps in research on XAI through an assessment of the essential properties of XAI and an evaluation of explanation effectiveness in the healthcare field. Methods: A search of PubMed and Embase databases for relevant peer-reviewed articles on development of an XAI model using clinical data and evaluating explanation effectiveness published between January 1, 2011, and April 30, 2022, was conducted. All retrieved papers were screened independently by the two authors. Relevant papers were also reviewed for identification of the essential properties of XAI (e.g., stakeholders and objectives of XAI, quality of personalized explanations) and the measures of explanation effectiveness (e.g., mental model, user satisfaction, trust assessment, task performance, and correctability). Results: Six out of 882 articles met the criteria for eligibility. Artificial Intelligence (AI) users were the most frequently described stakeholders. XAI served various purposes, including evaluation, justification, improvement, and learning from AI. Evaluation of the quality of personalized explanations was based on fidelity, explanatory power, interpretability, and plausibility. User satisfaction was the most frequently used measure of explanation effectiveness, followed by trust assessment, correctability, and task performance. The methods of assessing these measures also varied. Conclusion: XAI research should address the lack of a comprehensive and agreed-upon framework for explaining XAI and standardized approaches for evaluating the effectiveness of the explanation that XAI provides to diverse AI stakeholders.

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 · 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16110

Cites

56 of 56 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?

  • Within the GDPR of the European Union, transparency is a fundamental principle for data processing.

    “Within the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) of the European Union, transparency is a fundamental principle for data processing [15].”
  • Privacy laws such as GDPR, HIPAA and PIPL all include clauses that state that the handling of healthcare data should be transparent, which means that AI algorithms that work with these data should be transparent and explainable as well.

    “Privacy laws such as GDPR, HIPAA and PIPL all include clauses that state that the handling of healthcare data should be transparent, which means that AI algorithms that work with these data should be transparent and explainable as well.”
  • Consistent with prior findings, only a small number of studies formally evaluated the effectiveness of XAI in clinical settings.

    “Consistent with prior findings [44], only a small number of studies formally evaluated the effectiveness of XAI in clinical settings.”

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: 1

  1. [2]Kocielnik R. Amershi S. Bennett P.N. Will you accept an imperfect AI? Exploring designs for adjusting end-user expectations of AI systems, Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems J. ACM 2019 1 14 10.1145/3290605.3300641 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jung, J., Lee, H., Jung, H., & Kim, H.
Affiliations
  • Seoul National University (KR)
  • University of Seoul (KR)
Corresponding author
Kim, Hyeoneui
Venue
Heliyon
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-05
Volume
9
Issue
5
Pages
e16110
ISSN
2405-8440 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4378515194
Cited by
87
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 4
FWCI
1.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Heliyon (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Seoul National University Open Repository (Seoul National University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Ministry of Education
  • National Research Foundation of Korea
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
Keywords
explainable AI, health care, personalized explanations, user satisfaction, trust evaluation, correctability, task performance, mental models, clinical data, interpretability

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