XAI-based Clinical Decision Support System: A Systematic Review
Open accessPreprint — 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
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?
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.”
From Explainable AI for Clinical Decision Support Systems: Literature Review, Key Gaps, and Research Synthesis (2025) · cites this paper as [54]
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.
- ORCID
- Kim, SeYoung
- 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
- gold
- doi.org
- 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