Cited by 540Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Ethics and Social Impacts of AIScientific Computing and Data Management

Transparency and reproducibility in artificial intelligence

Open access
Haibe-Kains, Benjamin, Adam, George Alexandru, Hosny, Ahmed, Khodakarami, Farnoosh, Massive Analysis Quality Control (MAQC) Society Board of Directors, Shraddha, Thakkar, Kusko, Rebecca, Sansone, Susanna-Assunta +24 more·2020·Nature

Abstract

Open Access articles citing this article. Deep learning in the stock market—a systematic survey of practice, backtesting, and applications Kenniy Olorunnimbe & Herna Viktor Artificial Intelligence Review Open Access 30 June 2022 Machine learning generalizability across healthcare settings: insights from multi-site COVID-19 screening Jenny Yang , Andrew A. S. Soltan & David A. Clifton npj Digital Medicine Open Access 07 June 2022 Bringing machine learning to research on intellectual and developmental disabilities: taking inspiration from neurological diseases Chirag Gupta , Pramod Chandrashekar … Daifeng Wang Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders Open Access 02 May 2022

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 · 10.1038/s41586-020-2766-y

Cites

18 of 18 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?

  • AI's transparency and interpretability are challenged by factors such as patient privacy, algorithm interpretability, publication bias, etc.

    “In addition, AI's transparency and interpretability are challenged by factors such as patient privacy, algorithm interpretability, publication bias, etc. 39,40.”

    From Artificial intelligence in pancreatic cancer (2022) · cites this paper as [40]

    The Abstract (page unavailable) says patient privacy limits data sharing and that insufficient documentation and unavailable code hinder transparent, reproducible AI research. It does not identify publication bias as a challenge, and it discusses reproducibility rather than algorithm interpretability specifically. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Using corporate models in medicine poses risks to patient privacy, transparency and reliability.

    “highlighting the risk of using corporate models in a sensitive area such as medicine, where patient privacy, transparency and reliability are essential74,76”

    From Evaluation and mitigation of the limitations of large language models in clinical decision-making (2024) · cites this paper as [76]

    The paper’s Abstract discusses privacy concerns around patient data and warns that withholding model code and methods prevents independent validation of medical AI. It describes the example as a “closed technology,” but does not identify corporate ownership or corporate models as the source of those risks; its reliability concern is specifically about reproducibility and validation. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • When generative AI follows the release-by-blogpost model, it is reaping the benefits of mimicking scientific communication without actually doing the work.

    “When generative AI follows the release-by-blogpost model, it is reaping the benefits of mimicking scientific communication -including associations of reproducibility and rigour [21, 23]- without actually doing the work.”
  • One of the most effective methods of mitigating AI biases is to ensure the use of diverse and representative datasets during AI development and training.

    “One of the most effective methods of mitigating AI biases is to ensure the use of diverse and representative datasets during AI development and training [67, 87].”
  • Ensuring transparency and reproducibility is critical for independent research groups to review and build on prior scientific progress.

    “A critical component of AI evaluation and development more generally is ensuring transparency and reproducibility, allowing independent research groups to review and build on prior scientific progress (196).”

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]Nature Research Editorial Policies. Reporting standards and availability of data, materials, code and protocols. Springer Nature https://www.nature.com/nature-research/editorial-policies/reporting-standards.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Haibe-Kains, B., Adam, G. A., Hosny, A., Khodakarami, F., Massive Analysis Quality Control (MAQC) Society Board of Directors, Shraddha, T., Kusko, R., Sansone, S.-A., Tong, W., Wolfinger, R. D., Mason, C. E., Jones, W., Dopazo, J., Furlanello, C., Waldron, L., Wang, B., McIntosh, C., Goldenberg, A., Kundaje, A., Greene, C. S., Broderick, T., Hoffman, M. M., Leek, J. T., Korthauer, K., Huber, W., Brazma, A., Pineau, J., Tibshirani, R., Hastie, T., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Quackenbush, J., & Aerts, H. J. W. L.
Affiliations
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • University Health Network (CA)
  • National Center for Toxicological Research (US)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • SAS Institute (United States) (US)
  • Q2 Solutions (United States) (US)
  • City University of New York (US)
  • Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CA)
  • Alex's Lemonade Stand Foundation (US)
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
  • European Bioinformatics Institute (GB)
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
Venue
Nature
Published
2020-10-14
Volume
586
Issue
7829
Pages
E14-E16
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
OpenAlex
W3008058947
Cited by
540
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 83 · 2025: 91 · 2024: 97 · 2023: 110 · 2022: 79 · 2021: 70 · 2020: 10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (acceptedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • RISalud Institutional Health Repository of Andalucía (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/L005069/2, BB/E025080/1, BB/L005069/1, BB/J020265/1, BB/L005050/1)
  • National Cancer Institute (U24CA180996, R01CA237170, CA237170)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (DP2GM123485)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Scientific Computing and Data Management
Keywords
reproducibility, explainability, deep learning, backtesting, generalizability, machine learning in healthcare, intellectual and developmental disabilities
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Artificial Intelligence, Reproducibility of Results

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