PreprintCited by 72Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

XAI-based Clinical Decision Support System: A Systematic Review

Open access
Kim, SeYoung, Kim, DaeHo, Kim, MinJi, Ko, HyoJin, Jeong, OkRan·2024·Applied Sciences

Preprint — published as 10.3390/app14156638

Abstract

With increasing electronic medical data and the development of artificial intelligence, Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSSs) assist clinicians in diagnosis and prescription. Traditional knowledge-based CDSSs follow an accumulated medical knowledgebase and a predefined rule system, which clarifies the decision-making process; however, maintenance cost issues exist in the medical data quality control and standardization process. Non-knowledge-based CDSSs utilize vast amounts of data and algorithms to effectively decide; however, the deep learning black-box problem causes unreliable results. EXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)-based CDSS provides a valid rationale and explainable results. It ensures trustworthiness and transparency by showing the recommendation and prediction results process through explainable techniques. However, existing systems have limitations, such as the scope of data utilization and the lack of explanatory power of AI models. This study proposes a new XAI-based CDSS framework to address these issues; introduce resources, datasets, and models that can be utilized; and provides a foundation model to support decision-making in various disease domains. Finally, we propose future directions for CDSS technology and highlight societal issues that need to be addressed to emphasize the potential of CDSS in the future.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.20944/preprints202406.0721.v1

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Existing evaluation practices for XAI in CDSS lack robustness and user-centered perspectives.

    “Further reviews focusing on XAI in CDSS (e.g., Kim et al. [54] and Aziz et al. [55]) provide broad overviews of applied methods and clinical domains, but they consistently critique existing evaluation practices for lacking robustness and user-centered perspectives.”

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 158 · Cited by 72

Authors
Kim, S., Kim, D., Kim, M., Ko, H., & Jeong, O.
Venue
Applied Sciences
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2024-06-11
Volume
14
Issue
15
Pages
6638-6638
ISSN
2076-3417 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4401117531
Cited by
72
References
158
Citations by year
2026: 44 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 4
FWCI
2.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Applied Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Preprints.org (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Ministry of Science and ICT, South Korea (RS-2023-00273954)
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, clinical decision support systems, medical data quality, clinical decision-making

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