Search

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has emerged as a transformative force in healthcare systems, enabling advanced analytics, personalized interventions, and streamlined governance frameworks. This narrative review synthesizes recent literature on GenAI’s integration into healthcare infrastructures, emphasizing systems governance, safety protocols, and accountability mechanisms. We explore how GenAI enhances clinical decision-making, data analytics, and closed-loop systems while addressing ethical, regulatory, and operational challenges.At the core of healthcare systems, GenAI facilitates intelligent analytics by generating synthetic data for training models, simulating patient outcomes, and optimizing resource allocation. Governance frameworks are critical for ensuring responsible deployment, with studies highlighting the need for institutional guidelines that mitigate risks such as bias amplification and data privacy breaches. Safety considerations encompass algorithmic transparency, error detection in generative outputs, and human oversight in clinical loops. Accountability extends to lifecycle management, from model development to post-deployment monitoring, as evidenced by global initiatives and regional models like those in the GCC.The review delineates the landscape of GenAI applications in healthcare analytics, including predictive modeling for chronic disease management and real-time decision support. We propose an original systems-level framing that integrates data ingestion, inference generation, intervention deployment, and feedback recalibration under governance umbrellas. This synthesis reveals gaps in current infrastructures, such as the lack of standardized AI guardians for information overload and the challenges of scaling enterprise AI.In examining intelligent clinical decision systems, we highlight architectures that fuse GenAI with electronic health records (EHRs) for closed-loop operations, where generative models inform adaptive interventions. Ethical considerations are woven throughout, advocating for principles adapted from military contexts to healthcare. The adoption of GenAI in US hospitals underscores its potential for inpatient summaries and chronic care, yet calls for regulatory oversight to align with Helsinki declarations.Ultimately, this review positions GenAI as a cornerstone for accountable healthcare systems, urging interdisciplinary collaboration to balance innovation with safety. By synthesizing governance models, safety protocols, and accountability structures, we provide a roadmap for sustainable integration, fostering equitable health outcomes in an AI-augmented era.

The integration of artificial intelligence into clinical decision support systems offers improved diagnostic accuracy and efficiency, but the opacity of many machine learning models raises concerns about trust, accountability, and regulatory compliance. Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) has been proposed to address this by making model predictions interpretable to clinicians; however, its true clinical value remains uncertain, and evaluation has not kept pace with methodological development. This systematic review aimed to identify XAI methods used in clinical decision support systems, assess how they are evaluated with clinicians, and determine whether explanations improve diagnostic accuracy, trust, mental models, and efficiency. Following PRISMA guidelines, we searched PubMed, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library, and Scopus for studies published between 2017 and 2024. Eligible studies included original research evaluating XAI in clinical decision support systems with clinician participants and reporting quantitative or qualitative outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using adapted QUADAS-2 and ROBIS tools, and findings were synthesized narratively with subgroup analyses. From 2,847 records, 68 studies were included. The most common XAI methods were SHAP-based feature attribution (38%), saliency or heatmap methods (29%), concept-based approaches such as TCAV (15%), and counterfactual or example-based explanations (12%). Radiology was the dominant field (54%), followed by dermatology (18%) and pathology (12%). Evaluation approaches were highly inconsistent, with few validated instruments and most studies relying on Likert-scale trust measures or qualitative feedback. Only 16% of studies showed improved diagnostic accuracy with explanations, 67% showed no significant effect, and 17% reported reduced accuracy due to over-reliance or misinterpretation. Although 82% of studies reported increased clinician trust, trust rarely correlated with actual diagnostic performance. Overall, while XAI methods are widely studied in clinical decision support, their evaluation is inconsistent and their benefits are limited. Explanations tend to increase clinician trust without reliably improving diagnostic accuracy, and may sometimes worsen performance, highlighting a trust–accuracy gap that poses important safety concerns for clinical deployment.