Integrating automated knowledge extraction with large language models for explainable medical decision-making.
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong reasoning ability and inspired many previously unimaginable applications. In this paper, we aim to harness the strong reasoning capability of LLMs toward explainable medical diagnosis. As we know, deep learning has been widely adopted and shown improvement in medical diagnostics. However, it is often criticized for its lack of interpretability. To address this drawback, we propose the first method that innovatively combines Markov logic networks (MLNs) with external knowledge extracted using LLMs, aiming for improved both interpretability and accuracy. Specifically, our approach involves a new process, powered by LLMs and a search engine, to automatically collect and organize external medical knowledge. The outcome is a set of first-order logic (FOL) rules, which then become a key component for the following MLN-based diagnostic algorithm. The resulting MLN-based model can maintain the accuracy of deep networks while providing understandable reasoning for its decisions. By aiming to blend specific knowledge from the medical domain with LLM techniques, our work contributes towards the development of improved automatic diagnosis systems, with the potential for enhancing transparency and trust in medical diagnostics.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Structured decoding approaches enforce interpretable reasoning pathways by construction, rather than hoping that prompted models will faithfully externalize their computations.
“Structured decoding approaches [65,96,101,115,122] enforce interpretable reasoning pathways by construction, rather than hoping that prompted models will faithfully externalize their computations.”
From Explainability of decoder-only clinical large language models: A scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [122]
Cites
Interleaving Retrieval with Chain-of-Thought Reasoning for Knowledge-Intensive Multi-Step Questions
Trivedi, H., Balasubramanian, N., Khot, T., & Sabharwal, A. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.10509 · Cited by 349 · see citing works
Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback
Madaan, A., Tandon, N., Gupta, P., Hallinan, S., Gao, L., Wiegreffe, S., Alon, U., Dziri, N., Prabhumoye, S., Yang, Y., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.17651 · Cited by 219 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Explainability of decoder-only clinical large language models: A scoping review
Mishra, N., Abu-Hanna, A., & Calixto, I. (2026) · Artificial Intelligence in Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.artmed.2026.103501
- Authors
- Zhang, H., Li, J., Wang, Y., & Song, Y.
- Affiliations
- Shenzhen University (CN)
- Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HK)
- Venue
- 2023 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2023-12-05
- Pages
- 1710-1717
- OpenAlex
- W4390992265
- Cited by
- 15
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 4
- FWCI
- 2.66
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM) (publishedVersion)
- Rare & Special e-Zone (The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Keywords
- large language models, knowledge extraction, Markov logic networks, first-order logic rules, automatic knowledge acquisition, interpretability, clinical decision-making, search engines, automated diagnosis system
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