Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Explainable AI And Visual Reasoning: Insights From Radiology

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2304.03318 v1 pith:CK663WXE submitted 2023-04-06 cs.HC cs.AI

classification cs.HCcs.AI
keywords explanationsradiologyhumanjustificationpractitionersreasoningadoptionevidence
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Why do explainable AI (XAI) explanations in radiology, despite their promise of transparency, still fail to gain human trust? Current XAI approaches provide justification for predictions, however, these do not meet practitioners' needs. These XAI explanations lack intuitive coverage of the evidentiary basis for a given classification, posing a significant barrier to adoption. We posit that XAI explanations that mirror human processes of reasoning and justification with evidence may be more useful and trustworthy than traditional visual explanations like heat maps. Using a radiology case study, we demonstrate how radiology practitioners get other practitioners to see a diagnostic conclusion's validity. Machine-learned classifications lack this evidentiary grounding and consequently fail to elicit trust and adoption by potential users. Insights from this study may generalize to guiding principles for human-centered explanation design based on human reasoning and justification of evidence.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Visual-Conversational Interface for Evidence-Based Explanation of Diabetes Risk Prediction

    cs.HC 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A visual-conversational diabetes risk tool grounded in scientific evidence was rated by 30 healthcare professionals as improving understanding and calibrating trust.

Pith tools