Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 145 references

Trustworthy AI in Digital Health: A Comprehensive Review of Robustness and Explainability

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Trust in AI for digital health depends on treating robustness and explainability as one design problem, this review argues, and it organizes methods, application challenges, and evaluation metrics into a single framework.

desk verdict A mostly accurate, practitioner-friendly review of robustness and explainability in digital health, weakened mainly by an overclaimed 'unique gap' and heavy reliance on the authors' own prior systems. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.02238 v1 pith:CPUKRHEN submitted 2026-08-03 cs.AI cs.LG

Abdullah Mamun , Shovito Barua Soumma , Hassan Ghasemzadeh This is my paper
classification cs.AIcs.LG
keywords trustworthyAIdigitalhealthrobustnessexplainabilitycounterfactualexplanationsevaluationmetricsmachinelearninglifecycleXAI
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Trustworthy AI for digital health is often split into two separate research streams: work on robustness (surviving missing data, sensor failure, noisy labels, and distribution shifts) and work on explainability (attribution methods, saliency maps, and counterfactual explanations). This review's central move is to combine them, contending that a health AI cannot earn clinical trust unless it is both reliable in the wild and able to explain its decisions in actionable terms. It does so by mapping challenges across the machine learning lifecycle, surveying application-specific trust concerns in areas such as intensive care, neonatal health, and metabolic monitoring, and assembling an evaluation toolkit—validity, fidelity, proximity, sparsity, diversity, and a trust coefficient—that makes trust measurable. If its synthesis holds, developers and regulators gain a shared frame for judging whether a system is worth deploying: check its robustness under realistic stress and check whether its explanations survive the same scrutiny.

What carries the argument

Two organizing devices carry the argument. The first is a lifecycle-and-domain map: it situates trust challenges—noise, missing data, class imbalance, distribution shift, opacity—at stages from problem definition through data collection, training, evaluation, and inference, and then links those challenges to both robustness and explainability methods and to clinical domains such as intensive care, neonatal care, and metabolic health. The second is the evaluation metric set: validity, fidelity, proximity, sparsity, diversity, and a mutual-information-based trust coefficient, which converts 'trust' from a slogan into measurable, comparable quantities. These devices allow the review to argue th

What would settle it

A protocol-driven systematic search of the digital-health AI literature combining robustness and explainability terms would falsify the uniqueness claim if it surfaces earlier reviews that already treat both dimensions together; alternatively, a blind clinical study showing that systems scoring high on the proposed metrics (validity, fidelity, proximity, sparsity, diversity) are not trusted more by clinicians than low-scoring systems would challenge the framework's practical value.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Central claim: the digital-health AI literature has developed robustness and explainability on separate tracks, and this split blocks real deployment. The authors argue the two are interdependent—a model that fails when a sensor is lost is untrustworthy however clear its explanations, and an accurate model whose reasoning cannot be inspected offers little decision support. The review's contribution is a unified frame: lifecycle challenges, application-specific trust demands, and an evaluation-metric taxonomy that make robustness and explainability commensurable and auditable on the same system.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that this review uniquely bridges the robustness-explainability gap rests on the assumption that the cited works fairly represent the field and that the authors' own health-AI systems, featured prominently in the application showcases, are typical rather than favorable examples; no systematic search protocol is documented to ensure representativeness.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Health AI products would come with a paired report: performance under sensor failure, missing channels, and distribution shift alongside validity, fidelity, and diversity scores for their explanations, making trust claims checkable.
  • The metric taxonomy gives researchers and clinicians a common vocabulary, so a counterfactual method validated in one domain can be compared directly with a saliency-map method in another.
  • Application-specific concerns—imbalance in neonatal risk data, missing wearables in metabolic tracking, label noise in free-living activity—map onto a menu of existing robust-learning techniques, pointing practitioners straight to solutions.
  • For LLM-based health assistants, the same standard applies: they need both stress-testing for hallucinated or outdated information and verifiable reasoning traces that clinicians can audit.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural but untested consequence of the framework is that robustness techniques (augmentation, imputation, balancing) should also stabilize explanations; researchers could measure whether explanations change less when inputs are perturbed, unifying the two literatures empirically.
  • The metric set could be extended with uncertainty-aware criteria—for example, confidence intervals on attribution scores or counterfactual validity under distribution shift—making trust evaluations more honest in high-stakes settings.
  • The lifecycle map implies a regulatory audit template: a device submission would document robustness stress tests at each stage and explanation-quality metrics at inference, turning the review's frame into a checklist for approval processes.
  • A next synthesis might connect this framework to causal reasoning, testing whether counterfactual explanations that are causally faithful (not just prediction-changing) produce better clinician decisions than purely associative ones.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper is a narrative review of robustness and explainability as pillars of trustworthy AI in digital health. It opens with a survey of existing trustworthy-AI reviews and situates its contribution as jointly synthesizing robustness and explainability for healthcare. It then discusses application-specific trust concerns (radiology, cardiology, metabolic health, neonatal care, mental health, brain health, ICU, public health), robustness methods under data scarcity and sensor failure, explainable AI methods (LIME, SHAP, LRP, GradCAM, Integrated Gradients, NICE, DiCE, CFNOW), LLM-era trust issues, and evaluation metrics with formal definitions for validity, fidelity, proximity, sparsity, diversity, and trust. Many illustrative systems are drawn from the authors' own prior work (AIMEN, GlucoLens, CUDLE, sensor-failure reconstruction, MetaBoost), and the paper is framed as 'uniquely bridging' a gap in the literature.

Significance. If accepted as a synthesis, the review provides a useful entry point for researchers and practitioners: the descriptions of standard XAI methods are accurate; the taxonomy in Tables 1–4 is clearly organized; and the metric equations in Section 8 are a practical resource. The paper also explicitly engages with prior reviews, which strengthens its reliability as a survey. The main contribution is organizational rather than technical: it collects and links robustness and explainability concepts in a healthcare context. This is valuable despite the overstatement of uniqueness, and the paper's strengths lie in its breadth and clarity rather than in novel methodology.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 2.1] The claim that 'This review uniquely bridges that gap' is contradicted by the paper's own Table 1, which lists Albahri et al. (2023) and Band et al. (2023) as reviews that jointly address trustworthiness and explainability in healthcare. Since this novelty claim is the primary positioning of the paper, it should be revised to a more defensible statement, e.g., that the review focuses specifically on digital-health applications and integrates robustness and explainability with a metric-oriented perspective, rather than claiming uniqueness.
  2. [Section 4.4 and Tables 2–3] The selection of illustrative systems is heavily weighted toward the authors' own prior work (AIMEN, GlucoLens, CUDLE, sensor-failure reconstruction, MetaBoost). Because the review does not document a systematic search strategy or inclusion criteria, the representativeness of this selection is unclear. This directly affects the 'comprehensive' claim. The authors should either add a methodology/limitations section disclosing the selection process and the self-citation concentration, or include more independent systems with comparable functionality.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.3] The heading 'Regularization and Novel Frameworks for Model Robustness' appears inside the Explainability section. The content (orthogonality constraints and hallucination detection) is about model robustness more than explanation, so the heading may mislead readers; consider renaming to reflect the joint robustness/explainability focus.
  2. [Section 8.2.4] The proximity equations use negative distances, but the text does not explicitly define the sign convention. State that Proximity_cont is a negated average distance so that higher values mean closer (better) counterfactuals.
  3. [References] Reference [94] lists the publisher as 'Lulu. com' with a space; correct to 'Lulu.com'. Also, some arXiv preprints (e.g., [12], [83], [88]) are cited without a version or access date; consider adding them for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the review is descriptive, externally grounded, and has no fitted-input/prediction chain.

full rationale

This is a narrative review rather than a derivation, so the standard circularity failure modes (fit-vs-prediction, definitional equivalence, ansatz smuggled in via citation) do not arise. The technical content—LIME, SHAP, Integrated Gradients, GradCAM, NICE, DiCE, and the evaluation metrics in Section 8—is described as standard external methods and is not used to justify any new predictive claim. Although several illustrative applications (AIMEN [85], GlucoLens [83], CUDLE [15], sensor-failure reconstruction [89]) are the authors' own work, they are presented as examples of robustness/explainability, not as evidence that forces the review's central claims; Table 1 explicitly acknowledges overlapping reviews (Albahri et al. [6], Band et al. [18], Ojha et al. [102]), so the 'uniquely bridges that gap' statement is an overclaim about novelty rather than a self-referential derivation. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. Accordingly, there is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

A review has no fitted parameters or invented entities. The burdens are conceptual: accepting a particular definitional framework (NIST/EU), assuming the literature selection is unbiased, and treating the authors' own prior systems as representative examples.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The NIST and EU definitions of trustworthy AI (robustness, explainability, fairness, privacy, accountability) are accepted as the organizing framework.
    Section 1 adopts these definitions as the backbone of the review without comparing them with alternative trust frameworks; the paper's structure depends on this choice.
  • domain assumption The 145 cited references constitute a representative sample of the relevant literature.
    No systematic search strategy, databases, or inclusion/exclusion criteria are reported; the review's comprehensiveness claim presumes representativeness.
  • ad hoc to paper The authors' own prior systems (CUDLE, AIMEN, GlucoLens, sensor-failure reconstruction, MetaBoost) are valid and representative exemplars of robust/explainable digital health AI.
    Sections 4 and 5.4 present these systems as the primary evidence that the proposed framework is practical; if those works are flawed or unrepresentative, the review's conclusions weaken.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Trustworthy AI in Digital Health: A Comprehensive Review of Robustness and Explainability." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CPUKRHEN

@misc{pith2026260802238,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Trustworthy AI in Digital Health: A Comprehensive Review of Robustness and Explainability},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CPUKRHEN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02238}
}
read the original abstract

Ensuring trust in AI systems is essential for the safe and ethical integration of machine learning systems into high-stakes domains such as digital health. Key dimensions, including robustness, explainability, fairness, accountability, and privacy, need to be addressed throughout the AI lifecycle, from problem formulation and data collection to model deployment and human interaction. While various contributions address different aspects of trustworthy AI, a focused synthesis on robustness and explainability, especially tailored to the healthcare context, remains limited. This review addresses that need by organizing recent advancements into an accessible framework, highlighting both technical and practical considerations. We present a structured overview of methods, challenges, and solutions, aiming to support researchers and practitioners in developing reliable and explainable AI solutions for digital health. This review article is organized into three main parts. First, we introduce the pillars of trustworthy AI and discuss the technical and ethical challenges, particularly in the context of digital health. Second, we explore application-specific trust considerations across domains such as intensive care, neonatal health, and metabolic health, highlighting how robustness and explainability support trust. Lastly, we present recent advancements in techniques aimed at improving robustness under data scarcity and distributional shifts, as well as explainable AI methods ranging from feature attribution to gradient-based interpretations and counterfactual explanations. This paper is further enriched with detailed discussions of the contributions toward robustness and explainability in digital health, the development of trustworthy AI systems in the era of LLMs, and various evaluation metrics for measuring trust and related parameters such as validity, fidelity, and diversity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.02238 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Examples implicating the importance of robustness and explainability in AI systems. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Challenges in machine learning systems in different phases of the development lifecycle. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Example of a LIME plot for breast cancer detection. In this example, we applied LIME on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example of a SHAP BeeSwarm plot for breast cancer detection. We applied SHAP on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example of GradCAM and Integrated Gradients plots for detecting pneumonia from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

145 extracted references · 24 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    [Accessed July 2025]

    CE Marking trade.gov.https://www.trade.gov/ce-marking. [Accessed July 2025]

    2025

  2. [2]

    https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/ ethics-guidelines-trustworthy-ai

    Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI — digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/ ethics-guidelines-trustworthy-ai. [Accessed July 2025]

    2025

  3. [3]

    https://scikit-learn.org/stable/modules/ generated/sklearn.datasets.load_breast_cancer.html

    load_breast_cancer — scikit-learn.org. https://scikit-learn.org/stable/modules/ generated/sklearn.datasets.load_breast_cancer.html. [Accessed July 2025]

    2025

  4. [4]

    https://www.nist.gov/ trustworthy-and-responsible-ai

    Trustworthy and Responsible AI — nist.gov. https://www.nist.gov/ trustworthy-and-responsible-ai. [Accessed July 2025]

    2025

  5. [5]

    From attribution maps to human-understandable explanations through concept relevance propagation.Nature Machine Intelligence, 5(9):1006– 1019, 2023

    Reduan Achtibat, Maximilian Dreyer, Ilona Eisenbraun, Sebastian Bosse, Thomas Wiegand, Wojciech Samek, and Sebastian Lapuschkin. From attribution maps to human-understandable explanations through concept relevance propagation.Nature Machine Intelligence, 5(9):1006– 1019, 2023

    2023

  6. [6]

    A systematic review of trustworthy and explainable artificial intelligence in healthcare: Assessment of quality, bias risk, and data fusion.Information Fusion, 96:156–191, 2023

    Ahmed Shihab Albahri, Ali M Duhaim, Mohammed A Fadhel, Alhamzah Alnoor, Noor S Baqer, Laith Alzubaidi, Osamah Shihab Albahri, Abdullah Hussein Alamoodi, Jinshuai Bai, Asma Salhi, et al. A systematic review of trustworthy and explainable artificial intelligence in healthcare: Assessment of quality, bias risk, and data fusion.Information Fusion, 96:156–191, 2023

    2023

  7. [7]

    Actilabel: A combinatorial transfer learning framework for activity recognition.arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.07415, 2020

    Parastoo Alinia, Iman Mirzadeh, and Hassan Ghasemzadeh. Actilabel: A combinatorial transfer learning framework for activity recognition.arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.07415, 2020

    arXiv 2003

  8. [8]

    Evaluating the faithfulness of saliency maps in explaining deep learning models using realistic perturbations

    José P Amorim, Pedro H Abreu, João Santos, Marc Cortes, and Victor Vila. Evaluating the faithfulness of saliency maps in explaining deep learning models using realistic perturbations. Information Processing & Management, 60(2):103225, 2023

    2023

Show all 145 references
  1. [9]

    Deep learning for ecg arrhythmia detection and classification: an overview of progress for period 2017–2023

    Yaqoob Ansari, Omar Mourad, Khalid Qaraqe, and Erchin Serpedin. Deep learning for ecg arrhythmia detection and classification: an overview of progress for period 2017–2023. Frontiers in Physiology, 14:1246746, 2023

    2017

  2. [10]

    Designing user-centric behavioral interventions to prevent dysglycemia with novel counterfactual explanations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01684, 2023

    Asiful Arefeen and Hassan Ghasemzadeh. Designing user-centric behavioral interventions to prevent dysglycemia with novel counterfactual explanations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01684, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Glyman: Glycemic management using patient-centric counterfactuals

    Asiful Arefeen, Saman Khamesian, Maria Adela Grando, Bithika Thompson, and Hassan Ghasemzadeh. Glyman: Glycemic management using patient-centric counterfactuals. In2024 IEEE EMBS International Conference on Biomedical and Health Informatics (BHI), pages 1–5. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Glytwin: Digital twin for glucose control in type 1 diabetes through optimal be- havioral modifications using patient-centric counterfactuals.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.09846, 2025

    Asiful Arefeen, Saman Khamesian, Maria Adela Grando, Bithika Thompson, and Hassan Ghasemzadeh. Glytwin: Digital twin for glucose control in type 1 diabetes through optimal be- havioral modifications using patient-centric counterfactuals.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.09846, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Semi-factual explanations in ai

    Saugat Aryal. Semi-factual explanations in ai. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, pages 23379–23380, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    A hybrid method for imputation of missing values using optimized fuzzy c-means with support vector regression and a genetic algorithm

    Ibrahim Berkan Aydilek and Ahmet Arslan. A hybrid method for imputation of missing values using optimized fuzzy c-means with support vector regression and a genetic algorithm. Information Sciences, 233:25–35, 2013

    2013

  7. [15]

    Cudle: Learning under label scarcity to detect cannabis use in uncontrolled environments using wearables.IEEE Sensors Journal, 2025

    Reza Rahimi Azghan, Nicholas C Glodosky, Ramesh Kumar Sah, Carrie Cuttler, Ryan McLaughlin, Michael J Cleveland, and Hassan Ghasemzadeh. Cudle: Learning under label scarcity to detect cannabis use in uncontrolled environments using wearables.IEEE Sensors Journal, 2025. 18

    2025

  8. [16]

    Robust counterfactual explanations on graph neural networks.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:5644–5655, 2021

    Mohit Bajaj, Lingyang Chu, Zi Yu Xue, Jian Pei, Lanjun Wang, Peter Cho-Ho Lam, and Yong Zhang. Robust counterfactual explanations on graph neural networks.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:5644–5655, 2021

    2021

  9. [17]

    Explainable ai is responsible ai: How explainability creates trustworthy and socially responsible artificial intelligence.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.01555, 2023

    Stephanie Baker and Wei Xiang. Explainable ai is responsible ai: How explainability creates trustworthy and socially responsible artificial intelligence.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.01555, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Application of explainable artificial intelligence in medical health: A systematic review of interpretability methods.Informatics in Medicine Unlocked, 40:101286, 2023

    Shahab S Band, Atefeh Yarahmadi, Chung-Chian Hsu, Meghdad Biyari, Mehdi Sookhak, Rasoul Ameri, Iman Dehzangi, Anthony Theodore Chronopoulos, and Huey-Wen Liang. Application of explainable artificial intelligence in medical health: A systematic review of interpretability method...

    2023

  11. [19]

    Mhealth dataset.UCI machine learning repository, 2014

    Oresti Banos, Rafael Garcia, and Alejandro Saez. Mhealth dataset.UCI machine learning repository, 2014

    2014

  12. [20]

    Llama-nemotron: Efficient reasoning models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.00949, 2025

    Akhiad Bercovich, Itay Levy, Izik Golan, Mohammad Dabbah, Ran El-Yaniv, Omri Puny, Ido Galil, Zach Moshe, Tomer Ronen, Najeeb Nabwani, et al. Llama-nemotron: Efficient reasoning models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.00949, 2025

    2025

  13. [21]

    Responsible development of clinical speech ai: Bridging the gap between clinical research and technology.NPJ Digital Medicine, 7(1):208, 2024

    Visar Berisha and Julie M Liss. Responsible development of clinical speech ai: Bridging the gap between clinical research and technology.NPJ Digital Medicine, 7(1):208, 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    Jorge Bernal, Nima Tajkbaksh, Francisco Javier Sanchez, Bogdan J Matuszewski, Hao Chen, Lequan Yu, Quentin Angermann, Olivier Romain, Bjørn Rustad, Ilangko Balasingham, et al. Comparative validation of polyp detection methods in video colonoscopy: results from the miccai 2015 ...

    2015

  15. [23]

    Fine-tuning a llm using reinforcement learning from human feedback for a therapy chatbot application, 2023

    Desirée Bill and Theodor Eriksson. Fine-tuning a llm using reinforcement learning from human feedback for a therapy chatbot application, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Layer-wise relevance propagation for neural networks with local renor- malization layers

    Alexander Binder, Grégoire Montavon, Sebastian Lapuschkin, Klaus-Robert Müller, and Wojciech Samek. Layer-wise relevance propagation for neural networks with local renor- malization layers. InArtificial Neural Networks and Machine Learning–ICANN 2016: 25th International Confer...

    2016

  17. [25]

    Ethical issues in ai- enabled disease surveillance: perspectives from global health.Applied Sciences, 12(8):3890, 2022

    Ann Borda, Andreea Molnar, Cristina Neesham, and Patty Kostkova. Ethical issues in ai- enabled disease surveillance: perspectives from global health.Applied Sciences, 12(8):3890, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    Nice: an algorithm for nearest instance counterfactual explanations.Data mining and knowledge discovery, 38(5):2665–2703, 2024

    Dieter Brughmans, Pieter Leyman, and David Martens. Nice: an algorithm for nearest instance counterfactual explanations.Data mining and knowledge discovery, 38(5):2665–2703, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Artificial intelligence revolution in turkish health consultancy: Development of llm-based virtual doctor assistants

    Muhammed Kayra Bulut and Banu Diri. Artificial intelligence revolution in turkish health consultancy: Development of llm-based virtual doctor assistants. In2024 8th International Artificial Intelligence and Data Processing Symposium (IDAP), pages 1–6. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    e-snli: Nat- ural language inference with natural language explanations.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 31, 2018

    Oana-Maria Camburu, Tim Rocktäschel, Thomas Lukasiewicz, and Phil Blunsom. e-snli: Nat- ural language inference with natural language explanations.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 31, 2018

    2018

  21. [29]

    Grad-cam++: Generalized gradient-based visual explanations for deep convolutional networks

    Aditya Chattopadhay, Anirban Sarkar, Prantik Howlader, and Vineeth N Balasubramanian. Grad-cam++: Generalized gradient-based visual explanations for deep convolutional networks. In2018 IEEE winter conference on applications of computer vision (WACV), pages 839–847. IEEE, 2018

    2018

  22. [30]

    Rlhf deciphered: A critical analysis of reinforcement learning from human feedback for llms.ACM Computing Surveys, 2024

    Shreyas Chaudhari, Pranjal Aggarwal, Vishvak Murahari, Tanmay Rajpurohit, Ashwin Kalyan, Karthik Narasimhan, Ameet Deshpande, and Bruno Castro da Silva. Rlhf deciphered: A critical analysis of reinforcement learning from human feedback for llms.ACM Computing Surveys, 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    Smote: synthetic minority over-sampling technique.Journal of artificial intelligence research, 16:321– 357, 2002

    Nitesh V Chawla, Kevin W Bowyer, Lawrence O Hall, and W Philip Kegelmeyer. Smote: synthetic minority over-sampling technique.Journal of artificial intelligence research, 16:321– 357, 2002

    2002

  24. [32]

    Diabetes: Non-invasive blood glucose monitoring using federated learning with biosensor signals.Biosensors, 15(4):255, 2025

    Narmatha Chellamani, Saleh Ali Albelwi, Manimurugan Shanmuganathan, Palanisamy Amirthalingam, and Anand Paul. Diabetes: Non-invasive blood glucose monitoring using federated learning with biosensor signals.Biosensors, 15(4):255, 2025. 19

    2025

  25. [33]

    Encoder-decoder with atrous separable convolution for semantic image segmentation

    Liang-Chieh Chen, Yukun Zhu, George Papandreou, Florian Schroff, and Hartwig Adam. Encoder-decoder with atrous separable convolution for semantic image segmentation. In Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV), pages 801–818, 2018

    2018

  26. [34]

    Do models explain themselves? counterfactual simulatability of natural language explanations

    Yanda Chen, Ruiqi Zhong, Narutatsu Ri, Chen Zhao, He He, Jacob Steinhardt, Zhou Yu, and Kathleen McKeown. Do models explain themselves? counterfactual simulatability of natural language explanations. InProceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning, pages...

    2024

  27. [35]

    How machine learning is used to study addiction in digital healthcare: A systematic review.International Journal of Information Management Data Insights, 3(2):100175, 2023

    Bijoy Chhetri, Lalit Mohan Goyal, and Mamta Mittal. How machine learning is used to study addiction in digital healthcare: A systematic review.International Journal of Information Management Data Insights, 3(2):100175, 2023

    2023

  28. [36]

    Role of orthogonality constraints in improving properties of deep networks for image classification.arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.10762, 2020

    Hongjun Choi, Anirudh Som, and Pavan Turaga. Role of orthogonality constraints in improving properties of deep networks for image classification.arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.10762, 2020

    2009 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Evaluating visual explanations of attention maps for transformer-based medical imaging

    Minjae Chung, Jong Bum Won, Ganghyun Kim, Yujin Kim, and Utku Ozbulak. Evaluating visual explanations of attention maps for transformer-based medical imaging. InInternational Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pages 110–120. Springer, 2024

    2024

  30. [38]

    The future landscape of large language models in medicine.Communications medicine, 3(1):141, 2023

    Jan Clusmann, Fiona R Kolbinger, Hannah Sophie Muti, Zunamys I Carrero, Jan-Niklas Eckardt, Narmin Ghaffari Laleh, Chiara Maria Lavinia Löffler, Sophie-Caroline Schwarzkopf, Michaela Unger, Gregory P Veldhuizen, et al. The future landscape of large language models in medicine....

    2023

  31. [39]

    Evaluation of individual and ensemble probabilistic forecasts of covid-19 mortality in the united states.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(15):e2113561119, 2022

    Estee Y Cramer, Evan L Ray, Velma K Lopez, Johannes Bracher, Andrea Brennen, Alvaro J Castro Rivadeneira, Aaron Gerding, Tilmann Gneiting, Katie H House, Yuxin Huang, et al. Evaluation of individual and ensemble probabilistic forecasts of covid-19 mortality in the united state...

    2022

  32. [40]

    Bias in medical ai: Implications for clinical decision-making.PLOS Digital Health, 3(11):e0000651, 2024

    James L Cross, Michael A Choma, and John A Onofrey. Bias in medical ai: Implications for clinical decision-making.PLOS Digital Health, 3(11):e0000651, 2024

    2024

  33. [41]

    Multi-objective coun- terfactual explanations

    Susanne Dandl, Christoph Molnar, Martin Binder, and Bernd Bischl. Multi-objective coun- terfactual explanations. InInternational conference on parallel problem solving from nature, pages 448–469. Springer, 2020

    2020

  34. [42]

    A multitask learning approach to per- sonalized blood glucose prediction.IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 26(1):436–445, 2021

    John Daniels, Pau Herrero, and Pantelis Georgiou. A multitask learning approach to per- sonalized blood glucose prediction.IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 26(1):436–445, 2021

    2021

  35. [43]

    Raphael Mazzine Barbosa de Oliveira, Kenneth Sörensen, and David Martens. A model- agnostic and data-independent tabu search algorithm to generate counterfactuals for tabular, image, and text data.European Journal of Operational Research, 317(2):286–302, 2024

    2024

  36. [44]

    Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.08608, 2017

    Finale Doshi-Velez and Been Kim. Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.08608, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Revealing hidden context bias in segmentation and object detection through concept-specific explanations

    Maximilian Dreyer, Reduan Achtibat, Thomas Wiegand, Wojciech Samek, and Sebastian Lapuschkin. Revealing hidden context bias in segmentation and object detection through concept-specific explanations. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recog...

    2023

  38. [46]

    Haloscope: Harnessing unlabeled llm generations for hallucination detection.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:102948– 102972, 2025

    Xuefeng Du, Chaowei Xiao, and Sharon Li. Haloscope: Harnessing unlabeled llm generations for hallucination detection.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:102948– 102972, 2025

    2025

  39. [47]

    The llama 3 herd of models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783, 2024

    Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Amy Yang, Angela Fan, et al. The llama 3 herd of models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Attengluco: Multimodal transformer-based blood glucose forecasting on ai-readi dataset

    Ebrahim Farahmand, Reza Rahimi Azghan, Nooshin Taheri Chatrudi, Eric Kim, Gautham Kr- ishna Gudur, Edison Thomaz, Giulia Pedrielli, Pavan Turaga, and Hassan Ghasemzadeh. Attengluco: Multimodal transformer-based blood glucose forecasting on ai-readi dataset. arXiv preprint arXi...

    2025 arXiv

  41. [49]

    A trustworthy ai reality-check: the lack of transparency of artificial intelligence products in healthcare.Frontiers in Digital Health, 6:1267290, 2024

    Jana Fehr, Brian Citro, Rohit Malpani, Christoph Lippert, and Vince I Madai. A trustworthy ai reality-check: the lack of transparency of artificial intelligence products in healthcare.Frontiers in Digital Health, 6:1267290, 2024. 20

    2024

  42. [50]

    Towards an ai co-scientist.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.18864, 2025

    Juraj Gottweis, Wei-Hung Weng, Alexander Daryin, Tao Tu, Anil Palepu, Petar Sirkovic, Artiom Myaskovsky, Felix Weissenberger, Keran Rong, Ryutaro Tanno, et al. Towards an ai co-scientist.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.18864, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Interpretable machine learning model for new-onset atrial fibrillation prediction in critically ill patients: a multi-center study.Critical Care, 28(1):349, 2024

    Chengjian Guan, Angwei Gong, Yan Zhao, Chen Yin, Lu Geng, Linli Liu, Xiuchun Yang, Jingchao Lu, and Bing Xiao. Interpretable machine learning model for new-onset atrial fibrillation prediction in critically ill patients: a multi-center study.Critical Care, 28(1):349, 2024

    2024

  44. [52]

    Domain adaptation for medical image analysis: a survey.IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 69(3):1173–1185, 2021

    Hao Guan and Mingxia Liu. Domain adaptation for medical image analysis: a survey.IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 69(3):1173–1185, 2021

    2021

  45. [53]

    Counterfactual explanations and how to find them: literature review and benchmarking.Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 38(5):2770–2824, 2024

    Riccardo Guidotti. Counterfactual explanations and how to find them: literature review and benchmarking.Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 38(5):2770–2824, 2024

    2024

  46. [54]

    Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948, 2025

    Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, et al. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Trustworthy artificial intelligence in medical imaging.PET clinics, 17(1):1, 2022

    Navid Hasani, Michael A Morris, Arman Rhamim, Ronald M Summers, Elizabeth Jones, Eliot Siegel, and Babak Saboury. Trustworthy artificial intelligence in medical imaging.PET clinics, 17(1):1, 2022

    2022

  48. [56]

    Adasyn: Adaptive synthetic sampling approach for imbalanced learning

    Haibo He, Yang Bai, Edwardo A Garcia, and Shutao Li. Adasyn: Adaptive synthetic sampling approach for imbalanced learning. In2008 IEEE international joint conference on neural networks (IEEE world congress on computational intelligence), pages 1322–1328. Ieee, 2008

    2008

  49. [57]

    Masked autoencoders are scalable vision learners

    Kaiming He, Xinlei Chen, Saining Xie, Yanghao Li, Piotr Dollár, and Ross Girshick. Masked autoencoders are scalable vision learners. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 16000–16009, 2022

    2022

  50. [58]

    Exploring inherent sensor redundancy for automotive anomaly detection

    Tianjia He, Lin Zhang, Fanxin Kong, and Asif Salekin. Exploring inherent sensor redundancy for automotive anomaly detection. In2020 57th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC), pages 1–6. IEEE, 2020

    2020

  51. [59]

    A survey on hallucination in large language models: Principles, taxonomy, challenges, and open questions.ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 43(2):1–55, 2025

    Lei Huang, Weijiang Yu, Weitao Ma, Weihong Zhong, Zhangyin Feng, Haotian Wang, Qiang- long Chen, Weihua Peng, Xiaocheng Feng, Bing Qin, et al. A survey on hallucination in large language models: Principles, taxonomy, challenges, and open questions.ACM Transactions on Informati...

    2025

  52. [60]

    Self-supervised learning for medical image classification: a systematic review and implementation guidelines.NPJ Digital Medicine, 6(1):74, 2023

    Shih-Cheng Huang, Anuj Pareek, Malte Jensen, Matthew P Lungren, Serena Yeung, and Akshay S Chaudhari. Self-supervised learning for medical image classification: a systematic review and implementation guidelines.NPJ Digital Medicine, 6(1):74, 2023

    2023

  53. [61]

    Energy-efficient missing data recovery in wearable devices: A novel search-based approach

    Dina Hussein, Taha Belkhouja, Ganapati Bhat, and Janardhan Rao Doppa. Energy-efficient missing data recovery in wearable devices: A novel search-based approach. In2023 IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Low Power Electronics and Design (ISLPED), pages 1–6. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  54. [62]

    Cim: A novel clustering-based energy-efficient data impu- tation method for human activity recognition.ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems, 22(5s):1–26, 2023

    Dina Hussein and Ganapati Bhat. Cim: A novel clustering-based energy-efficient data impu- tation method for human activity recognition.ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems, 22(5s):1–26, 2023

    2023

  55. [63]

    Openai o1 system card

    Aaron Jaech, Adam Kalai, Adam Lerer, Adam Richardson, Ahmed El-Kishky, Aiden Low, Alec Helyar, Aleksander Madry, Alex Beutel, Alex Carney, et al. Openai o1 system card. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.16720, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Requirements for trustworthy artificial intelligence–a review

    Davinder Kaur, Suleyman Uslu, and Arjan Durresi. Requirements for trustworthy artificial intelligence–a review. InAdvances in Networked-Based Information Systems: The 23rd International Conference on Network-Based Information Systems (NBiS-2020) 23, pages 105–115. Springer, 2021

    2020

  57. [65]

    Trustworthy artificial intelligence: a review.ACM computing surveys (CSUR), 55(2):1–38, 2022

    Davinder Kaur, Suleyman Uslu, Kaley J Rittichier, and Arjan Durresi. Trustworthy artificial intelligence: a review.ACM computing surveys (CSUR), 55(2):1–38, 2022

    2022

  58. [66]

    Identifying medical diagnoses and treatable diseases by image-based deep learning.cell, 172(5):1122– 1131, 2018

    Daniel S Kermany, Michael Goldbaum, Wenjia Cai, Carolina CS Valentim, Huiying Liang, Sally L Baxter, Alex McKeown, Ge Yang, Xiaokang Wu, Fangbing Yan, et al. Identifying medical diagnoses and treatable diseases by image-based deep learning.cell, 172(5):1122– 1131, 2018. 21

    2018

  59. [67]

    The promise and perils of artificial intelligence in advancing participatory science and health equity in public health.JMIR Public Health and Surveillance, 11(1):e65699, 2025

    Abby C King, Zakaria N Doueiri, Ankita Kaulberg, and Lisa Goldman Rosas. The promise and perils of artificial intelligence in advancing participatory science and health equity in public health.JMIR Public Health and Surveillance, 11(1):e65699, 2025

    2025

  60. [68]

    Large language models are zero-shot reasoners.Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:22199–22213, 2022

    Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners.Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:22199–22213, 2022

    2022

  61. [69]

    Establishing and evaluating trustworthy ai: overview and research challenges.Frontiers in Big Data, 7:1467222, 2024

    Dominik Kowald, Sebastian Scher, Viktoria Pammer-Schindler, Peter Müllner, Kerstin Waxneg- ger, Lea Demelius, Angela Fessl, Maximilian Toller, Inti Gabriel Mendoza Estrada, Ilija Šimi´c, et al. Establishing and evaluating trustworthy ai: overview and research challenges.Fronti...

    2024

  62. [70]

    Self-supervised learning in medicine and healthcare.Nature Biomedical Engineering, 6(12):1346–1352, 2022

    Rayan Krishnan, Pranav Rajpurkar, and Eric J Topol. Self-supervised learning in medicine and healthcare.Nature Biomedical Engineering, 6(12):1346–1352, 2022

    2022

  63. [71]

    Trustworthy ai in the age of pervasive computing and big data

    Abhishek Kumar, Tristan Braud, Sasu Tarkoma, and Pan Hui. Trustworthy ai in the age of pervasive computing and big data. In2020 IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops (PerCom Workshops), pages 1–6. IEEE, 2020

    2020

  64. [72]

    dr llm, what do i have?

    Wojciech Kusa, Edoardo Mosca, and Aldo Lipani. “dr llm, what do i have?”: The impact of user beliefs and prompt formulation on health diagnoses. InProceedings of the Third Workshop on NLP for Medical Conversations, pages 13–19, 2023

    2023

  65. [73]

    Retrieval- augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:9459–9474, 2020

    Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Na- man Goyal, Heinrich Küttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, et al. Retrieval- augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks.Advances in Neural Information Processing Syste...

    2020

  66. [74]

    Trustworthy ai: From principles to practices.ACM Computing Surveys, 55(9):1–46, 2023

    Bo Li, Peng Qi, Bo Liu, Shuai Di, Jingen Liu, Jiquan Pei, Jinfeng Yi, and Bowen Zhou. Trustworthy ai: From principles to practices.ACM Computing Surveys, 55(9):1–46, 2023

    2023

  67. [75]

    Yolov6: A single-stage object detection framework for industrial applications.arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.02976, 2022

    Chuyi Li, Lulu Li, Hongliang Jiang, Kaiheng Weng, Yifei Geng, Liang Li, Zaidan Ke, Qingyuan Li, Meng Cheng, Weiqiang Nie, et al. Yolov6: A single-stage object detection framework for industrial applications.arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.02976, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Early prediction of alzheimer’s disease and related dementias using real-world electronic health records.Alzheimer’s & Dementia, 19(8):3506–3518, 2023

    Qian Li, Xi Yang, Jie Xu, Yi Guo, Xing He, Hui Hu, Tianchen Lyu, David Marra, Amber Miller, Glenn Smith, et al. Early prediction of alzheimer’s disease and related dementias using real-world electronic health records.Alzheimer’s & Dementia, 19(8):3506–3518, 2023

    2023

  69. [77]

    Llms for relational reasoning: How far are we? InProceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Large Language Models for Code, pages 119–126, 2024

    Zhiming Li, Yushi Cao, Xiufeng Xu, Junzhe Jiang, Xu Liu, Yon Shin Teo, Shang-Wei Lin, and Yang Liu. Llms for relational reasoning: How far are we? InProceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Large Language Models for Code, pages 119–126, 2024

    2024

  70. [78]

    Improving llm reasoning through scaling inference computation with collaborative verification

    Zhenwen Liang, Ye Liu, Tong Niu, Xiangliang Zhang, Yingbo Zhou, and Semih Yavuz. Improving llm reasoning through scaling inference computation with collaborative verification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.05318, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Trustworthy llms: a survey and guideline for evaluating large language models’ alignment.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.05374, 2023

    Yang Liu, Yuanshun Yao, Jean-Francois Ton, Xiaoying Zhang, Ruocheng Guo, Hao Cheng, Yegor Klochkov, Muhammad Faaiz Taufiq, and Hang Li. Trustworthy llms: a survey and guideline for evaluating large language models’ alignment.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.05374, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Shap: A unified approach to interpreting model predictions

    Scott Lundberg and Su-in Lee. Shap: A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. Advances in neural information processing systems, pages 1–10, 2017

    2017

  73. [81]

    Clegg, Andrea Cavallaro, and Hamed Haddadi

    Mohammad Malekzadeh, Richard G. Clegg, Andrea Cavallaro, and Hamed Haddadi. Protect- ing sensory data against sensitive inferences. InProceedings of the 1st Workshop on Privacy by Design in Distributed Systems, W-P2DS’18, pages 2:1–2:6, New York, NY , USA, 2018. ACM

    2018

  74. [82]

    Clegg, Andrea Cavallaro, and Hamed Haddadi

    Mohammad Malekzadeh, Richard G. Clegg, Andrea Cavallaro, and Hamed Haddadi. Mobile sensor data anonymization. InProceedings of the International Conference on Internet of Things Design and Implementation, IoTDI ’19, pages 49–58, New York, NY , USA, 2019. ACM

    2019

  75. [83]

    Racette, Dorothy D

    Abdullah Mamun, Asiful Arefeen, Susan B. Racette, Dorothy D. Sears, Corrie M. Whisner, Matthew P. Buman, and Hassan Ghasemzadeh. Llm-powered prediction of hyperglycemia and discovery of behavioral treatment pathways from wearables and diet, 2025. 22

    2025

  76. [84]

    Aimi: Leveraging future knowl- edge and personalization in sparse event forecasting for treatment adherence.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.16091, 2025

    Abdullah Mamun, Diane J Cook, and Hassan Ghasemzadeh. Aimi: Leveraging future knowl- edge and personalization in sparse event forecasting for treatment adherence.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.16091, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Use of what-if scenarios to help explain artificial intelligence models for neonatal health.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.09635, 2024

    Abdullah Mamun, Lawrence D Devoe, Mark I Evans, David W Britt, Judith Klein-Seetharaman, and Hassan Ghasemzadeh. Use of what-if scenarios to help explain artificial intelligence models for neonatal health.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.09635, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Neonatal risk modeling and prediction

    Abdullah Mamun, Chia-Cheng Kuo, David W Britt, Lawrence D Devoe, Mark I Evans, Hassan Ghasemzadeh, and Judith Klein-Seetharaman. Neonatal risk modeling and prediction. In2023 IEEE 19th International Conference on Body Sensor Networks (BSN), pages 1–4. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  79. [87]

    Mul- timodal time-series activity forecasting for adaptive lifestyle intervention design

    Abdullah Mamun, Krista S Leonard, Matthew P Buman, and Hassan Ghasemzadeh. Mul- timodal time-series activity forecasting for adaptive lifestyle intervention design. In2022 IEEE-EMBS International Conference on Wearable and Implantable Body Sensor Networks (BSN), pages 1–4. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  80. [88]

    Multimodal physical activity forecasting in free-living clinical settings: Hunting opportunities for just-in-time interventions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.09643, 2024

    Abdullah Mamun, Krista S Leonard, Megan E Petrov, Matthew P Buman, and Hassan Ghasemzadeh. Multimodal physical activity forecasting in free-living clinical settings: Hunting opportunities for just-in-time interventions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.09643, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Designing deep neural networks robust to sensor failure in mobile health environments

    Abdullah Mamun, Seyed Iman Mirzadeh, and Hassan Ghasemzadeh. Designing deep neural networks robust to sensor failure in mobile health environments. In2022 44th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society (EMBC), pages 2442–2446. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  82. [90]

    Sensors and healthcare 5.0: transformative shift in virtual care through emerging digital health technologies

    Elliot Mbunge, Benhildah Muchemwa, Sipho’esihle Jiyane, and John Batani. Sensors and healthcare 5.0: transformative shift in virtual care through emerging digital health technologies. global health journal, 5(4):169–177, 2021

    2021

  83. [91]

    A comprehensive study on fidelity metrics for xai.Information Processing & Management, 62(1):103900, 2025

    Miquel Miró-Nicolau, Antoni Jaume-i Capó, and Gabriel Moyà-Alcover. A comprehensive study on fidelity metrics for xai.Information Processing & Management, 62(1):103900, 2025

    2025

  84. [92]

    Labelmerger: Learning activities in uncontrolled environments

    Seyed Iman Mirzadeh, Jessica Ardo, Ramin Fallahzadeh, Bryan Minor, Lorraine Evangelista, Diane Cook, and Hassan Ghasemzadeh. Labelmerger: Learning activities in uncontrolled environments. In2019 First International Conference on Transdisciplinary AI (TransAI), pages 64–67. IEEE, 2019

    2019

  85. [93]

    A multidisciplinary survey and framework for design and evaluation of explainable ai systems.ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS), 11(3-4):1–45, 2021

    Sina Mohseni, Niloofar Zarei, and Eric D Ragan. A multidisciplinary survey and framework for design and evaluation of explainable ai systems.ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS), 11(3-4):1–45, 2021

    2021

  86. [94]

    Christoph Molnar.Interpretable machine learning. Lulu. com, 2020

    2020

  87. [95]

    Predicting sepsis using deep learning across international sites: a retrospective development and validation study.EClinicalMedicine, 62, 2023

    Michael Moor, Nicolas Bennett, Drago Ple ˇcko, Max Horn, Bastian Rieck, Nicolai Mein- shausen, Peter Bühlmann, and Karsten Borgwardt. Predicting sepsis using deep learning across international sites: a retrospective development and validation study.EClinicalMedicine, 62, 2023

    2023

  88. [96]

    George Moschonis, George Siopis, Jenny Jung, Evette Eweka, Ruben Willems, Dominika Kwasnicka, Bernard Yeboah-Asiamah Asare, Vimarsha Kodithuwakku, Nick Verhaeghe, Ra- jesh Vedanthan, et al. Effectiveness, reach, uptake, and feasibility of digital health interventions for adult...

    2023

  89. [97]

    Sayyed Mostafa Mostafavi, Shovito Barua Soumma, Daniel Peterson, Shyamal H Mehta, and Hassan Ghasemzadeh. Detection and severity assessment of parkinson’s disease through analyzing wearable sensor data using gramian angular fields and deep convolutional neural networks.Sensors...

    2025

  90. [98]

    Explaining machine learning classifiers through diverse counterfactual explanations

    Ramaravind K Mothilal, Amit Sharma, and Chenhao Tan. Explaining machine learning classifiers through diverse counterfactual explanations. InProceedings of the 2020 conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency, pages 607–617, 2020

    2020

  91. [99]

    Rnas-cl: Robust neural architecture search by cross-layer knowledge distillation.International Journal of Computer Vision, 132(12):5698–5717, 2024

    Utkarsh Nath, Yancheng Wang, Pavan Turaga, and Yingzhen Yang. Rnas-cl: Robust neural architecture search by cross-layer knowledge distillation.International Journal of Computer Vision, 132(12):5698–5717, 2024

    2024

  92. [100]

    Multimodal deep learning

    Jiquan Ngiam, Aditya Khosla, Mingyu Kim, Juhan Nam, Honglak Lee, Andrew Y Ng, et al. Multimodal deep learning. InICML, volume 11, pages 689–696, 2011. 23

    2011

  93. [101]

    Show your work: Scratchpads for intermediate computation with language models

    Maxwell Nye, Anders Johan Andreassen, Guy Gur-Ari, Henryk Michalewski, Jacob Austin, David Bieber, David Dohan, Aitor Lewkowycz, Maarten Bosma, David Luan, et al. Show your work: Scratchpads for intermediate computation with language models. 2021

    2021

  94. [102]

    Lind, Eric Monteiro, and Anis Yazidi

    Jaya Ojha, Oriana Presacan, Pedro G. Lind, Eric Monteiro, and Anis Yazidi. Navigating uncertainty: A user-perspective survey of trustworthiness of ai in healthcare.ACM Transactions on Computing for Healthcare, 6(3):1–32, 2025

    2025

  95. [103]

    Using artificial intelligence to improve public health: a narrative review.Frontiers in Public Health, 11:1196397, 2023

    David B Olawade, Ojima J Wada, Aanuoluwapo Clement David-Olawade, Edward Kunonga, Olawale Abaire, and Jonathan Ling. Using artificial intelligence to improve public health: a narrative review.Frontiers in Public Health, 11:1196397, 2023

    2023

  96. [104]

    Self- supervised learning for few-shot medical image segmentation.IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 41(7):1837–1848, 2022

    Cheng Ouyang, Carlo Biffi, Chen Chen, Turkay Kart, Huaqi Qiu, and Daniel Rueckert. Self- supervised learning for few-shot medical image segmentation.IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 41(7):1837–1848, 2022

    2022

  97. [105]

    Multimodal explanations: Justifying decisions and pointing to the evidence

    Dong Huk Park, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Zeynep Akata, Anna Rohrbach, Bernt Schiele, Trevor Darrell, and Marcus Rohrbach. Multimodal explanations: Justifying decisions and pointing to the evidence. InProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pag...

    2018

  98. [106]

    Ninlapa Pruksanusak, Natthicha Chainarong, Siriwan Boripan, and Alan Geater. Comparison of the predictive ability for perinatal acidemia in neonates between the nichd 3-tier fhr system combined with clinical risk factors and the fetal reserve index.Plos one, 17(10):e0276451, 2022

    2022

  99. [107]

    From known to unknown: Knowledge-guided transformer for time-series sales forecasting in alibaba.arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.08381, 2021

    Xinyuan Qi, Kai Hou, Tong Liu, Zhongzhong Yu, Sihao Hu, and Wenwu Ou. From known to unknown: Knowledge-guided transformer for time-series sales forecasting in alibaba.arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.08381, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  100. [108]

    Magistral.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.10910, 2025

    Abhinav Rastogi, Albert Q Jiang, Andy Lo, Gabrielle Berrada, Guillaume Lample, Jason Rute, Joep Barmentlo, Karmesh Yadav, Kartik Khandelwal, Khyathi Raghavi Chandu, et al. Magistral.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.10910, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  101. [109]

    Chatasd: Llm-based ai therapist for asd

    Xiaoyu Ren, Yuanchen Bai, Huiyu Duan, Lei Fan, Erkang Fei, Geer Wu, Pradeep Ray, Menghan Hu, Chenyuan Yan, and Guangtao Zhai. Chatasd: Llm-based ai therapist for asd. In International Forum on Digital TV and Wireless Multimedia Communications, pages 312–324. Springer, 2023

    2023

  102. [110]

    why should i trust you?

    Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin. " why should i trust you?" explaining the predictions of any classifier. InProceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 1135–1144, 2016

    2016

  103. [111]

    Stress monitoring in free-living environments.IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 2023

    Ramesh Kumar Sah, Michael J Cleveland, and Hassan Ghasemzadeh. Stress monitoring in free-living environments.IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 2023

    2023

  104. [112]

    Explainable ai for healthcare 5.0: opportunities and challenges.IEEE Access, 10:84486–84517, 2022

    Deepti Saraswat, Pronaya Bhattacharya, Ashwin Verma, Vivek Kumar Prasad, Sudeep Tanwar, Gulshan Sharma, Pitshou N Bokoro, and Ravi Sharma. Explainable ai for healthcare 5.0: opportunities and challenges.IEEE Access, 10:84486–84517, 2022

    2022

  105. [113]

    Quantifying interpretability and trust in machine learning systems

    Philipp Schmidt and Felix Biessmann. Quantifying interpretability and trust in machine learning systems. 2019

    2019

  106. [114]

    Generalized digital butterworth filter design.IEEE Transactions on signal processing, 46(6):1688–1694, 2002

    Ivan W Selesnick and C Sidney Burrus. Generalized digital butterworth filter design.IEEE Transactions on signal processing, 46(6):1688–1694, 2002

    2002

  107. [115]

    Grad-cam: Visual explanations from deep networks via gradient- based localization

    Ramprasaath R Selvaraju, Michael Cogswell, Abhishek Das, Ramakrishna Vedantam, Devi Parikh, and Dhruv Batra. Grad-cam: Visual explanations from deep networks via gradient- based localization. InProceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 618–626, 2017

    2017

  108. [116]

    Enhancing metabolic syndrome prediction with hybrid data balancing and counterfactuals

    Sanyam Paresh Shah, Abdullah Mamun, Shovito Barua Soumma, and Hassan Ghasemzadeh. Enhancing metabolic syndrome prediction with hybrid data balancing and counterfactuals. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.06987, 2025

    2025

  109. [117]

    A value for n-person games

    Lloyd S Shapley et al. A value for n-person games. 1953

    1953

  110. [118]

    Impact of labor characteristics on maternal and neonatal outcomes of labor: a machine-learning model.Plos one, 17(8):e0273178, 2022

    Sherif A Shazly, Bijan J Borah, Che G Ngufor, Vanessa E Torbenson, Regan N Theiler, and Abimbola O Famuyide. Impact of labor characteristics on maternal and neonatal outcomes of labor: a machine-learning model.Plos one, 17(8):e0273178, 2022. 24

    2022

  111. [119]

    Deep inside convolutional networks: Visualising image classification models and saliency maps.arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6034, 2013

    Karen Simonyan, Andrea Vedaldi, and Andrew Zisserman. Deep inside convolutional networks: Visualising image classification models and saliency maps.arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6034, 2013

    2013 arXiv

  112. [120]

    Explaining black box text modules in natural language with language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.09863, 2023

    Chandan Singh, Aliyah R Hsu, Richard Antonello, Shailee Jain, Alexander G Huth, Bin Yu, and Jianfeng Gao. Explaining black box text modules in natural language with language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.09863, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  113. [121]

    Validating a novel measure for assessing patient openness and concerns about using artificial intelligence in healthcare.Learning Health Systems, 9(1):e10429, 2025

    Bryan A Sisk, Alison L Antes, Sunny C Lin, Paige Nong, and James M DuBois. Validating a novel measure for assessing patient openness and concerns about using artificial intelligence in healthcare.Learning Health Systems, 9(1):e10429, 2025

    2025

  114. [122]

    Freezing of gait detection using gramian angular fields and federated learning from wearable sensors.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.11764, 2024

    Shovito Barua Soumma, SM Alam, Rudmila Rahman, Umme Niraj Mahi, Abdullah Mamun, Sayyed Mostafa Mostafavi, and Hassan Ghasemzadeh. Freezing of gait detection using gramian angular fields and federated learning from wearable sensors.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.11764, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  115. [123]

    Domain-informed label fusion surpasses llms in free-living activity classification (student abstract)

    Shovito Barua Soumma, Abdullah Mamun, and Hassan Ghasemzadeh. Domain-informed label fusion surpasses llms in free-living activity classification (student abstract). InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 39, 2025

    2025

  116. [124]

    Dropout: a simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting.The journal of machine learning research, 15(1):1929–1958, 2014

    Nitish Srivastava, Geoffrey Hinton, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. Dropout: a simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting.The journal of machine learning research, 15(1):1929–1958, 2014

    1929

  117. [125]

    Ai advances in icu with an emphasis on sepsis prediction: An overview.Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction, 7(1):6, 2025

    Charithea Stylianides, Andria Nicolaou, Waqar Aziz Sulaiman, Christina-Athanasia Alexan- dropoulou, Ilias Panagiotopoulos, Konstantina Karathanasopoulou, George Dimitrakopoulos, Styliani Kleanthous, Eleni Politi, Dimitris Ntalaperas, et al. Ai advances in icu with an emphasis ...

    2025

  118. [126]

    Axiomatic attribution for deep networks

    Mukund Sundararajan, Ankur Taly, and Qiqi Yan. Axiomatic attribution for deep networks. In International conference on machine learning, pages 3319–3328. PMLR, 2017

    2017

  119. [127]

    Training calibration-based counterfactual explainers for deep learning models in medical image analysis

    Jayaraman J Thiagarajan, Kowshik Thopalli, Deepta Rajan, and Pavan Turaga. Training calibration-based counterfactual explainers for deep learning models in medical image analysis. Scientific reports, 12(1):597, 2022

    2022

  120. [128]

    The mobiact dataset: Recognition of activities of daily living using smartphones

    George Vavoulas, Charikleia Chatzaki, Thodoris Malliotakis, Matthew Pediaditis, and Manolis Tsiknakis. The mobiact dataset: Recognition of activities of daily living using smartphones. InInternational conference on information and communication technologies for ageing well and...

    2016

  121. [129]

    Counterfactual explanations for machine learning: A review.arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.10596, 2(1):1, 2020

    Sahil Verma, John Dickerson, and Keegan Hines. Counterfactual explanations for machine learning: A review.arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.10596, 2(1):1, 2020

    2010 arXiv

  122. [130]

    Extracting and composing robust features with denoising autoencoders

    Pascal Vincent, Hugo Larochelle, Yoshua Bengio, and Pierre-Antoine Manzagol. Extracting and composing robust features with denoising autoencoders. InProceedings of the 25th international conference on Machine learning, pages 1096–1103, 2008

    2008

  123. [131]

    Aleatoric uncertainty estimation with test-time augmentation for medical image segmentation with convolutional neural networks.Neurocomputing, 338:34–45, 2019

    Guotai Wang, Wenqi Li, Michael Aertsen, Jan Deprest, Sébastien Ourselin, and Tom Ver- cauteren. Aleatoric uncertainty estimation with test-time augmentation for medical image segmentation with convolutional neural networks.Neurocomputing, 338:34–45, 2019

    2019

  124. [132]

    Improved diabetes care management through a text-message intervention for low-income patients: mixed- methods pilot study.JMIR diabetes, 3(4):e8645, 2018

    Jessica L Watterson, Hector P Rodriguez, Stephen M Shortell, and Adrian Aguilera. Improved diabetes care management through a text-message intervention for low-income patients: mixed- methods pilot study.JMIR diabetes, 3(4):e8645, 2018

    2018

  125. [133]

    Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:24824–24837, 2022

    2022

  126. [134]

    William Wolberg, Olvi Mangasarian, Nick Street, and W. Street. Breast Cancer Wisconsin (Di- agnostic). UCI Machine Learning Repository, 1993. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24432/C5DW2B

    1993 doi

  127. [135]

    A medical diagnostic assistant based on llm

    Chengyan Wu, Zehong Lin, Wenlong Fang, and Yuyan Huang. A medical diagnostic assistant based on llm. InChina Health Information Processing Conference, pages 135–147. Springer, 2023. 25

    2023

  128. [136]

    Xiaolong Wu, Lin Ma, Penghu Wei, Yongzhi Shan, Piu Chan, Kailiang Wang, and Guoguang Zhao. Wearable sensor devices can automatically identify the on-off status of patients with parkinson’s disease through an interpretable machine learning model.Frontiers in Neurology, 15:1387477, 2024

    2024

  129. [137]

    Mmdt: Decoding the trustworthi- ness and safety of multimodal foundation models

    Chejian Xu, Jiawei Zhang, Zhaorun Chen, Chulin Xie, Mintong Kang, Yujin Potter, Zhun Wang, Zhuowen Yuan, Alexander Xiong, Zidi Xiong, et al. Mmdt: Decoding the trustworthi- ness and safety of multimodal foundation models. InThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning R...

  130. [138]

    Modeling tabular data using conditional gan.Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019

    Lei Xu, Maria Skoularidou, Alfredo Cuesta-Infante, and Kalyan Veeramachaneni. Modeling tabular data using conditional gan.Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019

    2019

  131. [139]

    Bufang Yang, Siyang Jiang, Lilin Xu, Kaiwei Liu, Hai Li, Guoliang Xing, Hongkai Chen, Xiaofan Jiang, and Zhenyu Yan. Drhouse: An llm-empowered diagnostic reasoning system through harnessing outcomes from sensor data and expert knowledge.Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, M...

    2024

  132. [140]

    Unmasking and quantifying racial bias of large language models in medical report generation.Communications medicine, 4(1):176, 2024

    Yifan Yang, Xiaoyu Liu, Qiao Jin, Furong Huang, and Zhiyong Lu. Unmasking and quantifying racial bias of large language models in medical report generation.Communications medicine, 4(1):176, 2024

    2024

  133. [141]

    Visualizing and understanding convolutional networks

    Matthew D Zeiler and Rob Fergus. Visualizing and understanding convolutional networks. In European conference on computer vision, pages 818–833. Springer, 2014

    2014

  134. [142]

    Binary imbalanced data classification based on diversity oversampling by generative models.Information Sciences, 585:313–343, 2022

    Junhai Zhai, Jiaxing Qi, and Chu Shen. Binary imbalanced data classification based on diversity oversampling by generative models.Information Sciences, 585:313–343, 2022

    2022

  135. [143]

    Cross-domain conditional diffusion models for time series imputation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.12412, 2025

    Kexin Zhang, Baoyu Jing, K Selçuk Candan, Dawei Zhou, Qingsong Wen, Han Liu, and Kaize Ding. Cross-domain conditional diffusion models for time series imputation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.12412, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  136. [144]

    Unet++: Redesigning skip connections to exploit multiscale features in image segmentation

    Zongwei Zhou, Md Mahfuzur Rahman Siddiquee, Nima Tajbakhsh, and Jianming Liang. Unet++: Redesigning skip connections to exploit multiscale features in image segmentation. IEEE transactions on medical imaging, 39(6):1856–1867, 2019

    2019

  137. [145]

    Z-inspection®: a process to assess trustworthy ai.IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society, 2(2):83–97, 2021

    Roberto V Zicari, John Brodersen, James Brusseau, Boris Düdder, Timo Eichhorn, Todor Ivanov, Georgios Kararigas, Pedro Kringen, Melissa McCullough, Florian Möslein, et al. Z-inspection®: a process to assess trustworthy ai.IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society, 2(2):83–97...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.