A User-Centric Analysis of Explainability in AI-Based Medical Image Diagnosis

arXiv cs.CV / 5/6/2026

💬 OpinionIdeas & Deep AnalysisModels & Research

Key Points

  • The paper examines why AI for medical image diagnosis, despite high performance, is rarely adopted in practice due to insufficient clarity about how models reach decisions.
  • It conducts a user-centric, comparative study of state-of-the-art explainable AI (XAI) methods—textual, visual, and multimodal—focusing on how well explanations support clinicians.
  • A survey of 33 physicians found strong consensus that AI should explain its diagnosis, with 88% agreeing and 64% strongly agreeing.
  • Among the evaluated approaches, combining bounding boxes with a generated report was rated best across understandability, completeness, speed, and practical applicability.
  • The study also highlights a concerning risk: when diagnoses are false, 50% of participants reported trusting the incorrect AI outputs despite the tested XAI methods.

Abstract

In recent years, AI systems in the medical domain have advanced significantly. However, despite outperforming humans, they are rarely used in practice since it is often not clear how they make their decisions. Optimal explanation and visualization of the decision process are often lacking. Therefore, we conducted a comparative user-centric analysis of the latest state-of-the-art textual, visual and multimodal explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) methods for medical image diagnosis. Our survey of 33 physicians showed that 88% agree that it is important that AI explains the diagnosis -- 64% even strongly agree. A combination of bounding box and report is rated better than the other tested XAI methods in the evaluated aspects understandability, completeness, speed, and applicability. We even tested the potential negative impact of false AI-based medical image diagnoses and found that 50% of the participants trusted false AI diagnoses over all tested XAI methods.