Search

To overcome critical constraints regarding diagnostic accuracy and model transparency in medical imaging, this paper presents a novel framework termed the Pixel-Level Interpretability (PLI) model. The investigation primarily aims to benchmark PLI against Gradient-Weighted Class Activation Mapping (Grad-CAM) to attain superior localization correctness and highly detailed explainability. Operating on a VGG19 convolutional neural network infrastructure, the methodology incorporates three open-access COVID-19 chest X-ray datasets containing over 1000 categorized images; these underwent augmentation, normalization, and resizing steps to achieve generalizability and algorithmic stability. The experimental evaluation focused on vital performance metrics: structural similarity (SSIM), mean squared error (MSE), interpretability, computational speed, and diagnostic precision. The findings indicate that PLI drastically surpasses Grad-CAM across every evaluated metric. Specifically, PLI generated fine-grained, pixel-granular heatmaps that yielded reduced MSE, superior SSIM metrics, and expedited inference rates, demonstrating an capability to reveal minute diagnostic elements without sacrificing processing speed. Conversely, the explanations produced via Grad-CAM regularly lack the detailed resolution necessary for dependable clinical integration. By incorporating fuzzy logic to refine both numeric and visual explanations, PLI delivers transparent data that corresponds with clinical logic, thereby allowing healthcare professionals to execute decisions with greater certainty. Ultimately, this research validates PLI as a dependable framework for resolving deficiencies in AI explainability and clinical adoption. By simultaneously managing the dual demands of precision and transparency, PLI advances medical AI deployment and establishes a precedent for implementation within other high-stakes environments.

While deep convolutional neural networks (DCNNs) have achieved substantial breakthroughs in computer vision, these models are frequently criticized for their lack of interpretability during decision-making. A core issue is that their underlying operational mechanism is generally perceived as a "black-box." To address this, the authors introduce the binary tree structure convolution (BTSC) module and control the activation thresholds of specific neurons to construct an interpretable DCNN framework. First, the authors develop the BTSC module, where every parent node branches into two distinct child layers, which are subsequently integrated into a standard DCNN architecture. The primary benefits of the BTSC module include: 1) child nodes emerging from separate parent nodes operate without mutual interference; 2) parent and child nodes are capable of knowledge inheritance. Second, by managing neural activation states, the authors design an information coding objective that directs neural nodes toward acquiring a predefined, targeted information coding scheme. Empirical evaluations demonstrate that: 1) the decisions executed by both ResNet and DenseNet models can be effectively clarified via the "decision information flow path" (termed the decision-path) established within the BTSC module; 2) this decision-path offers a logical explanation for the decision reversal mechanism (Robustness mechanism) inherent in DCNN models; 3) the reliability of a decision can be quantified by evaluating the alignment between the actual and anticipated decision-paths.

At present, the majority of healthcare spending is driven by chronic patients who experience multiple readmissions due to their underlying conditions. Implementing individualized prevention frameworks could optimize the clinical management of this demographic. This study aimed to generate localized predictive models utilizing interpretable machine learning approaches to provide early identification of individual unscheduled hospital readmissions. To achieve this, a retrospective case-control investigation was performed, utilizing patient readmission data spanning 2018–2019. Following the cleaning and curation of the initial data repository (n = 76,210), the final sample size comprised n = 29,026 participants. A machine learning analysis evaluated multiple algorithms, employing unscheduled hospital readmission as the dependent variable, alongside local model-agnostic interpretability techniques.The results demonstrated a 13% rate of unscheduled hospital readmissions. Statistically significant variations were identified regarding patient age and length of hospital stay (p < 0.001 in both instances). A logistic regression framework highlighted chronic therapy (odds ratio: 3.75), a history of diabetes mellitus (odds ratio: 1.14), and length of stay (odds ratio: 1.02) as statistically meaningful predictors. Machine learning algorithms demonstrated superior performance concerning sensitivity and complementary evaluation metrics. Within this analytical framework, length of stay and patient age emerged as the primary determinants for forecasting unscheduled readmissions. Notably, other clinical indicators, such as documented allergies and histories of adverse drug reactions, also demonstrated predictive relevance. Individualized prognostic models exhibited high sensitivity. In conclusion, this investigation identified critical determinants governing unscheduled hospital readmissions, highlighting the prominence of age and hospitalization duration. A personalized risk assessment framework capable of predicting readmissions with high accuracy was established. Future investigations should incorporate a broader array of clinical parameters to further optimize the predictive capacity of this model.

In recent years, considerable attention has been directed toward clarifying complex, opaque systems, commonly referred to as black-box models, including deep neural networks and random forests. So-called model-agnostic techniques generally approximate the outputs of these non-transparent systems using an interpretable architecture, ignoring the internal mechanisms of the primary black-box system itself. Consequently, it remains an important inquiry whether the straightforward training of transparent, white-box architectures ought to be favored over the post-hoc approximation of these opaque models. This study presents the findings of an empirical investigation comparing post-hoc explanatory methods against inherently interpretable architectures across multiple datasets, focusing on both rule-based and feature-based frameworks. The empirical outcomes indicate that directly trained transparent models frequently approximate black-box models with an accuracy that matches or exceeds that of post-hoc surrogate models, despite lacking direct access to the underlying black-box structure.

Machine learning-driven decision support tools ought to assist users in detecting prospective advantages and risks. Widespread model-independent explanation frameworks can pinpoint elements underpinning specific forecasts—addressing queries like "What factors affect sales?" or "Why did sales decline?"—yet fail to indicate the actionable steps an individual can or should take to achieve a more favorable result. Although counterfactual explanation methods target actionable interventions and occasionally account for feasibility, they generally overlook viability for real-time systems like interactive question-answering platforms. In this study, we bridge this divide by proposing a unique model-agnostic technique that details concrete, viable adjustments capable of altering the predictions of a sophisticated Black Box AI framework for a specific instance; furthermore, we evaluate its practical utility by evaluating its computational speed in real time alongside its capacity to discover executable modifications. The developed approach leverages the target instance to produce high-precision explanations, subsequently employing a secondary mechanism to identify achievable minimally-contrastive counterfactual explanations (AMCC) by restricting the exploration space exclusively to modifications that adhere to domain-specific restrictions. Utilizing a well-established dataset, we assessed the classification procedure to determine both the success rate and the computational duration necessary to pinpoint valid counterfactual alternatives. Within the context of a classifier maintaining 90% accuracy, our proposed algorithm successfully extracted AMCC explanations in 47% of instances (38 of 81), requiring an average generation time of 80 ms. These outcomes confirm the efficiency of the algorithm in rapidly generating AMCC explanations, establishing its appropriateness for real-time deployments. The AMCC approach improves the interpretability of obscure Black Box AI models, thereby assisting stakeholders in analyzing corrective techniques or evaluating prospective consequences.

Explainability has become central to discussions of trustworthy and responsible intelligent systems, yet it is frequently reduced to the technical production of information about model structure, features, rules, or predictions. This critical review examines why opening a computational black box is not equivalent to producing an explanation that people can understand or use responsibly. The review synthesises conceptual, technical, human-centred, decisional, and accountability-oriented scholarship to evaluate the shift from model interpretability toward meaningful explanation. It distinguishes technical properties such as transparency, fidelity, plausibility, completeness, stability, and local or global scope from human outcomes such as comprehension, cognitive accessibility, mental-model development, decision usefulness, calibrated trust, and appropriate reliance. It further examines how explanations may produce overreliance, underreliance, automation bias, false reassurance, cognitive overload, or explanation mismatch when their content and presentation are not aligned with users, tasks, uncertainty, and decision consequences. From an accountability perspective, explanations may contribute to auditability, traceability, contestability, and recourse, but they cannot independently assign responsibility, provide institutional authority, or guarantee effective remedies. The main contribution is a human-centred critical synthesis that treats explainability as a socio-technical achievement rather than a model output. Meaningful explanation requires technical credibility, cognitive accessibility, contextual relevance, decision-sensitive evaluation, uncertainty communication, opportunities for challenge, and governance mechanisms capable of acting on explanatory evidence. The review therefore rejects universal explanation-sufficiency claims and identifies conditions under which explanations may assist understanding and responsible decision use without being treated as proof of trustworthiness, accountability, fairness, safety, or deployment readiness.

Foundation models have expanded the scope of artificial intelligence by supporting language generation, multimodal reasoning, knowledge-intensive assistance, decision support, and adaptable downstream applications. Their broad capabilities, however, do not establish that their outputs, explanations, internal processes, or deployment arrangements are trustworthy. This scoping review maps the research landscape concerning foundation-model trustworthiness across interpretability, explanation capabilities, hallucination, uncertainty, reliability, alignment, evaluation, and human oversight. The review uses structured search concepts, eligibility principles, evidence extraction, and dimension-based mapping to examine how peer-reviewed scholarship characterizes foundation models as general-purpose intelligent systems and how trustworthiness evidence is distributed across technical, human-centered, organizational, and governance domains. The synthesis indicates that interpretability methods can expose selected behavioral or representational features but do not independently demonstrate explanation fidelity, usefulness, or safety. Hallucination and factuality research identifies persistent risks involving fabrication, unsupported claims, weak grounding, and persuasive misinformation, while uncertainty methods remain constrained by calibration, context shift, and user-communication challenges. Alignment and post-training techniques may shape preferred behaviors but retain risks associated with proxy objectives, preference representation, and residual failure. Benchmarking, human evaluation, stress testing, and oversight provide partial evidence, yet their value depends on construct validity, domain relevance, intervention capacity, accountability, and lifecycle monitoring. The research landscape is therefore fragmented across disciplines and frequently model-centred rather than socio-technical. Key priorities include stronger foundation-model interpretability validation, consistent hallucination measurement, usable uncertainty communication, externally valid evaluation, meaningful oversight testing, multimodal analysis, and lifecycle governance. The review contributes an integrated evidence map while emphasizing that no single trustworthiness dimension certifies safety, reliability, accountability, or deployment readiness.