XAI for medicine by ChatGPT code interpreter
Open accessAbstract
In recent years, with the prevalence of Artificial Intelligence (AI), the interpretability of AI outputs has become a significant issue. Especially the interpretability of large language models (LLMs), including ChatGPT, has emerged as a major challenge. Consequently, there is a growing interest in the research of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI), which seeks to elucidate the decision-making processes of AI in a manner that humans can comprehend. In the medical field, where trust and transparency are important, the use of AI becomes challenging when its decisions are unclear. Therefore, XAI techniques become critically important in the medical field. In this study, we propose the prompt named Code Base Prompt (CBP) to make the ChatGPT's decision-making process on medical texts explainable by using the Python code execution function of Chat GPT Code interpreter. In CBP, the medical decision-making algorithm is rewritten as Python code. Moreover, we propose an explainability evaluation system named Medical Algorithm Presentation Criteria (MAPC) for medical algorithm application tasks to medical text. MAPC is evaluated by five factors to align the human understanding process. To compare CBP with a Text Base Prompt (TBP), we conducted an experiment applying the heart failure classification algorithm to heart failure case report texts in three medical articles. With CBP, the results showed that the ChatGPT Code interpreter executed the Python code in all three cases and met all the five MAPC factors. In contrast, with TBP, no Python code execution was observed in any of the three cases, validating only one factor of MAPC. This study presents a new method for implementing XAI in the use of ChatGPT for medical tasks.
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?
Custom and task-specific metrics emerged frequently in the reviewed studies.
“Custom and task-specific metrics emerged frequently, including Hallucination Quantification [111], Medical Algorithm Presentation Criteria(MAPC) [89], Diagnosis Confidence Scoring(DCS) [71], LExT scores combining plausibility and faithfulness [80], Reasoning Path Quality Assessment(RPQA) rated by physicians [87], and LLMw-Ref for reasoning trajectory evaluation [82].”
From Explainability of decoder-only clinical large language models: A scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [89]
In the review, twenty studies relied exclusively on closed-source models.
“In our review, twenty studies relied exclusively on closed-source models [62,63,79,89,105,118]”
From Explainability of decoder-only clinical large language models: A scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [89]
Cites
The forthcoming artificial intelligence (AI) revolution: Its impact on society and firms
Makridakis, S. (2017) · Futures · doi:10.1016/j.futures.2017.03.006 · Cited by 1,866 · cited 1× · see citing works
“In recent years, the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become very popular [1].”
BackgroundAli, S., Abuhmed, T., El-Sappagh, S., Muhammad, K., Alonso-Moral, J. M., Confalonieri, R., Guidotti, R., Del Ser, J., Díaz-Rodríguez, N., & Herrera, F. (2023) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2023.101805 · Cited by 1,762 · see citing works
Explainable AI (XAI): Core Ideas, Techniques, and Solutions
Dwivedi, R., Dave, D., Naik, H., Singhal, S., Omer, R., Patel, P., Qian, B., Wen, Z., Shah, T., Morgan, G., et al. (2023) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3561048 · Cited by 1,386 · see citing works
ChatGPT and large language models in academia: opportunities and challenges
Meyer, J. G., Urbanowicz, R. J., Martin, P. C. N., O’Connor, K., Li, R., Peng, P.-C., Bright, T. J., Tatonetti, N., Won, K. J., Gonzalez-Hernandez, G., et al. (2023) · BioData Mining · doi:10.1186/s13040-023-00339-9 · Cited by 569 · see citing works
Sheu, R.-K., & Pardeshi, M. S. (2022) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s22208068 · Cited by 129 · see citing works
XAI Systems Evaluation: A Review of Human and Computer-Centred Methods
Lopes, P., Silva, E., Braga, C., Oliveira, T., & Rosado, L. (2022) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app12199423 · Cited by 112 · see citing works
Lightman, H., Kosaraju, V., Burda, Y., Edwards, H., Baker, B., Lee, T., Leike, J., Schulman, J., Sutskever, I., & Cobbe, K. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.20050 · Cited by 65 · 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
- Kitamura, K., Irvan, M., & Shigetomi Yamaguchi, R.
- Affiliations
- The University of Tokyo (JP)
- The University of Tokyo, Japan
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 2023 5th International Conference on Big-data Service and Intelligent Computation
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2023-10-20
- Pages
- 28-34
- OpenAlex
- W4391331103
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2025: 4 · 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 0.89
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- International Conference on Big-data Service and Intelligent Computation (BDSIC) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- 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, ChatGPT, large language models, prompt engineering, explainability evaluation, heart failure classification
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