Embedding Explainable AI in NHS Clinical Safety: The Explainability-Enabled Clinical Safety Framework (ECSF)

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2511.11590v2
• Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2025 14:03:08 GMT
• Title: Embedding Explainable AI in NHS Clinical Safety: The Explainability-Enabled Clinical Safety Framework (ECSF)
• Authors: Robert Gigiu,
• Abstract summary: This paper proposes an Explainability-Enabled Clinical Safety Framework (ECSF) that integrates explainability into the DCB0129/0160 lifecycle.<n>Cross-regulatory synthesis maps DCB clauses to principles from Good Machine Learning Practice, the NHS AI Assurance and T.E.S.T frameworks, and the EU AI Act.<n>ECSF introduces five checkpoints: global transparency for hazard identification, case-level interpretability for verification, clinician usability for evaluation, traceable decision pathways for risk control, and longitudinal interpretability monitoring for post-market surveillance.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly embedded in NHS workflows, but its probabilistic and adaptive behaviour conflicts with the deterministic assumptions underpinning existing clinical-safety standards. DCB0129 and DCB0160 provide strong governance for conventional software yet do not define how AI-specific transparency, interpretability, or model drift should be evidenced within Safety Cases, Hazard Logs, or post-market monitoring. This paper proposes an Explainability-Enabled Clinical Safety Framework (ECSF) that integrates explainability into the DCB0129/0160 lifecycle, enabling Clinical Safety Officers to use interpretability outputs as structured safety evidence without altering compliance pathways. A cross-regulatory synthesis mapped DCB clauses to principles from Good Machine Learning Practice, the NHS AI Assurance and T.E.S.T. frameworks, and the EU AI Act. The resulting matrix links regulatory clauses, principles, ECSF checkpoints, and suitable explainability outputs. ECSF introduces five checkpoints: global transparency for hazard identification, case-level interpretability for verification, clinician usability for evaluation, traceable decision pathways for risk control, and longitudinal interpretability monitoring for post-market surveillance. Techniques such as SHAP, LIME, Integrated Gradients, saliency mapping, and attention visualisation are mapped to corresponding DCB artefacts. ECSF reframes explainability as a core element of clinical-safety assurance, bridging deterministic risk governance with the probabilistic behaviour of AI and supporting alignment with GMLP, the EU AI Act, and NHS AI Assurance principles.

Related papers

• Frontier AI Auditing: Toward Rigorous Third-Party Assessment of Safety and Security Practices at Leading AI Companies [57.521647436515785]
  We define frontier AI auditing as rigorous third-party verification of frontier AI developers' safety and security claims.<n>We introduce AI Assurance Levels (AAL-1 to AAL-4), ranging from time-bounded system audits to continuous, deception-resilient verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-16T18:44:09Z)
• Reasoning over Precedents Alongside Statutes: Case-Augmented Deliberative Alignment for LLM Safety [59.01189713115365]
  We evaluate the impact of explicitly specifying extensive safety codes versus demonstrating them through illustrative cases.<n>We find that referencing explicit codes inconsistently improves harmlessness and systematically degrades helpfulness.<n>We propose CADA, a case-augmented deliberative alignment method for LLMs utilizing reinforcement learning on self-generated safety reasoning chains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-12T21:08:46Z)
• Blockchain-Enabled Explainable AI for Trusted Healthcare Systems [0.0]
  This paper introduces a-Integrated Explainable AI Framework (BXHF) for healthcare systems.<n>We tackle two challenges confronting health information networks: safe data exchange and comprehensible AI-driven clinical decision-making.<n>Our architecture incorporates blockchain, ensuring patient records are immutable, auditable, and tamper-proof.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-18T14:17:19Z)
• Ethical AI: Towards Defining a Collective Evaluation Framework [0.3413711585591077]
  Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming sectors such as healthcare, finance, and autonomous systems.<n>Yet its rapid integration raises urgent ethical concerns related to data ownership, privacy, and systemic bias.<n>This article proposes a modular ethical assessment framework built on ontological blocks of meaning-discrete, interpretable units.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-30T21:10:47Z)
• Towards Safety Reasoning in LLMs: AI-agentic Deliberation for Policy-embedded CoT Data Creation [70.62656296780074]
  We propose AIDSAFE: Agentic Iterative Deliberation for Safety Reasoning, a novel data generation recipe.<n>A data refiner stage in AIDSAFE ensures high-quality outputs by eliminating repetitive, redundant, and deceptive thoughts.<n>Our evaluations demonstrate that AIDSAFE-generated CoTs achieve superior policy adherence and reasoning quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-27T21:34:40Z)
• Beyond Explainability: The Case for AI Validation [0.0]
  We argue for a shift toward validation as a central regulatory pillar.<n> Validation, ensuring the reliability, consistency, and robustness of AI outputs, offers a more practical, scalable, and risk-sensitive alternative to explainability.<n>We propose a forward-looking policy framework centered on pre- and post-deployment validation, third-party auditing, harmonized standards, and liability incentives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-27T06:42:41Z)
• Context Reasoner: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability for Contextualized Privacy and Safety Compliance via Reinforcement Learning [53.92712851223158]
  We formulate safety and privacy issues into contextualized compliance problems following the Contextual Integrity (CI) theory.<n>Under the CI framework, we align our model with three critical regulatory standards: EU AI Act, and HIPAA.<n>We employ reinforcement learning (RL) with a rule-based reward to incentivize contextual reasoning capabilities while enhancing compliance with safety and privacy norms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-20T16:40:09Z)
• SafetyAnalyst: Interpretable, Transparent, and Steerable Safety Moderation for AI Behavior [56.10557932893919]
  We present SafetyAnalyst, a novel AI safety moderation framework.<n>Given an AI behavior, SafetyAnalyst uses chain-of-thought reasoning to analyze its potential consequences.<n>It aggregates effects into a harmfulness score using 28 fully interpretable weight parameters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-22T03:38:37Z)
• Safe Inputs but Unsafe Output: Benchmarking Cross-modality Safety Alignment of Large Vision-Language Model [73.8765529028288]
  We introduce a novel safety alignment challenge called Safe Inputs but Unsafe Output (SIUO) to evaluate cross-modality safety alignment.<n>To empirically investigate this problem, we developed the SIUO, a cross-modality benchmark encompassing 9 critical safety domains, such as self-harm, illegal activities, and privacy violations.<n>Our findings reveal substantial safety vulnerabilities in both closed- and open-source LVLMs, underscoring the inadequacy of current models to reliably interpret and respond to complex, real-world scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-21T16:14:15Z)
• Fair by design: A sociotechnical approach to justifying the fairness of AI-enabled systems across the lifecycle [0.8164978442203773]
  Fairness is one of the most commonly identified ethical principles in existing AI guidelines. The development of fair AI-enabled systems is required by new and emerging AI regulation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-13T12:03:29Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.