Search

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into healthcare systems has revolutionized clinical analytics, enabling enhanced diagnostic accuracy, predictive modeling, and personalized treatment pathways. However, the opacity of many AI models poses significant challenges to their clinical adoption, necessitating advancements in explainable AI (XAI) to ensure interpretability and transparency. This narrative review synthesizes the literature on XAI within clinical systems, focusing on interpretability mechanisms, transparency frameworks, and deployment constraints in healthcare analytics. Drawing from high-impact studies, we examine how XAI addresses the “black box” nature of machine learning models in high-stakes medical decisions, particularly in contexts where performance has traditionally been prioritized over explainability. Key themes include the shift toward inherently interpretable models for critical applications, such as diagnostic imaging and predictive analytics, where post-hoc explanations often fall short. We explore the ethical imperatives for responsible AI deployment, including strategies for mitigating harm through transparent systems that align with clinical workflows. The review integrates perspectives on XAI in clinical diagnostics, emphasizing challenges in balancing model complexity with user trust. Transparency is framed not merely as a technical feature but as a systemic requirement, incorporating structured reporting practices for AI interventions and standardized modeling approaches. Deployment constraints are analyzed through the lens of real-world integration, including regulatory considerations, data privacy concerns, and human–AI interaction dynamics in healthcare infrastructures. We synthesize evidence from diverse applications, such as lung cancer diagnosis via explainable models and radiographic assessments, underscoring the need for multidisciplinary approaches to XAI. Furthermore, the review highlights biases in AI systems, particularly sex and gender disparities, and advocates for inclusive analytics to foster equitable healthcare. Clinical applications beyond the black box are discussed, with calls for standardized reporting to enhance reproducibility and trust. We position XAI as essential for closed-loop systems that incorporate feedback mechanisms, ensuring ongoing model recalibration in dynamic clinical environments. The synthesis reveals persistent gaps in current XAI deployments, such as overreliance on surrogate explanations that may mislead clinicians. Ultimately, this review proposes a systems-level framework for XAI in healthcare, integrating data ingestion, inference, decision support, and governance loops to overcome transparency barriers. This comprehensive overview informs the development of future AI-enabled healthcare infrastructures, emphasizing interpretability as a cornerstone for safe and effective clinical analytics.

Laboratory alert fatigue erodes the effectiveness of clinical decision support by making repeated abnormal result notifications less likely to prompt timely clinical attention. It is often recognised only after providers begin delaying, overriding, or ignoring alerts. Current alert reduction strategies are commonly based on broad thresholds or blanket suppression rules. These approaches do not explain which providers, specialties, alert types, or repeated result patterns are most susceptible to fatigue. This article proposes an interpretable machine learning model that could predict whether a provider will exhibit fatigued behaviour toward a specific laboratory alert. The model is intended to support transparent, provider-aware alert redesign rather than opaque automation. The proposed framework would use historical alert logs with features capturing alert frequency, clinical severity, provider specialty, repeated abnormal results, response time history, and override behaviour. A regularised logistic regression or gradient-boosted tree model with SHAP explanations would provide both prediction and interpretability. Conceptually, the model would generate a fatigue risk score for each provider–alert pair. It would also attribute the score to specific drivers, such as repeated low-severity results, accumulated alert burden, or recent override patterns. An interpretable fatigue prediction model could enable personalised alert suppression, escalation, or redesign before a clinically important laboratory result is missed. Such a system would support safer, more adaptive clinical decision support.

Specialty referral pathways are a critical point at which healthcare inequities can emerge. Referral decisions may be shaped by insurance status, race, language, documentation practices, diagnosis severity, and the structure of available provider networks. Health systems often lack scalable and explainable tools for detecting inequitable referral patterns as they occur. As a result, discriminatory or structurally biased patterns may remain hidden within routine clinical operations. This article develops a conceptual explainable artificial intelligence model for identifying whether demographic or insurance factors unduly influence specialty referral decisions after accounting for clinical severity. The model is designed to support transparent, fairness-oriented referral analytics rather than replace clinical judgment. The proposed model uses a gradient-boosted classification framework trained on referral-eligible primary care encounters. Input features include patient demographics, insurance type, diagnosis severity, primary care note-derived complexity and completeness features, and provider network metrics, with SHAP-based explanation layers used for fairness auditing. Conceptually, the model could flag encounters in which predicted referral likelihood diverges from clinically expected patterns. These flags would be interpreted through explanation methods that attribute potential inequitable influence to insurance, demographic, documentation, or network-related factors. The model could help health systems audit, explain, and intervene on systemic specialty referral bias. Its central contribution is a transparent framework for moving referral equity work from retrospective description toward proactive, data-driven fairness review.

Clinical pathways are designed to standardize inpatient care for common conditions while allowing clinically justified individualization. Deviations from these pathways are frequent and may reflect either appropriate adaptation to patient complexity or potentially harmful departure from evidence-informed practice. Current deviation detection often depends on retrospective audit, static compliance rules, or aggregate dashboards. These approaches can miss subtle temporal drift in care delivery and rarely explain why a specific patient trajectory diverged from the expected pathway. This article proposes an interpretable machine learning model for detecting clinical pathway deviations in hospitalized patients. The model focuses on order sequences, vital sign trends, laboratory monitoring frequency, and provider decision patterns as dynamic indicators of care-process variation. Conceptually, the model would compare each patient’s evolving care trajectory with learned expected pathways using sequence-comparison and outlier-detection logic. SHAP-based or attention-informed explanations would identify the specific features responsible for a deviation flag, such as delayed monitoring, omitted follow-up testing, or unusual ordering behavior. The proposed model could detect when a patient’s care trajectory diverges from an expected pathway and provide a transparent rationale for review. For example, it could flag a missing repeat troponin, a delayed antibiotic escalation, or a laboratory monitoring pattern inconsistent with the patient’s clinical state. An interpretable pathway-deviation model could shift quality monitoring from manual, sample-based review toward continuous and transparent pathway surveillance. Such a system would support real-time clinical awareness, structured audit, and organizational learning.