Scientific Explanations in Health Sciences: Causality, Trust, and Epistemic Adequacy

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.31616v1
• Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2026 13:05:00 GMT
• Title: Scientific Explanations in Health Sciences: Causality, Trust, and Epistemic Adequacy
• Abstract summary: This paper develops a critical review at the intersection of philosophy of science and medical explainable AI (XAI)<n>It argues that prevailing accounts of what counts as an explanation in the health sciences provide necessary conditions for a philosophically grounded approach to explainability in this domain.
• Score: 3.1248814505246636
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Medical Artificial Intelligence (AI) is widely expected to transform clinical practice, yet the decision-making processes of many Machine Learning (ML) models remain opaque. Explainability has been advanced as a partial remedy to clarify why AI generates predictions, particularly in high-stakes contexts. Despite ongoing efforts, debates on what constitutes an adequate medical explanation remain unsettled. Yet, explanation has long been a central topic of inquiry in the philosophy of science and medicine. The insights developed in these fields, however, have been largely overlooked in contemporary explainable AI (XAI) research, leaving its foundational assumptions insufficiently examined. To address this gap, this paper develops a critical review at the intersection of philosophy of science and XAI. It examines prevailing accounts of what counts as an explanation in the health sciences and assesses their adequacy for informing XAI in medicine, arguing that they provide necessary conditions for a philosophically grounded approach to explainability in this domain. Building on this foundational philosophical literature, the discussion identifies three central axes of analysis: the role of causality in medical reasoning, the epistemic and relational dimensions of medical trust, and the criteria of explanatory adequacy as shaped by the pragmatic needs of diverse stakeholders. By integrating philosophical analysis with current developments in medical AI, the paper outlines principles for designing XAI systems that offer explanations that are not only epistemically robust but also aligned with the epistemic and practical requirements of clinical decision-making, shaping ongoing debates in medical XAI toward underexplored conceptual foundations.

Related papers

• Medical Model Synthesis Architectures: A Case Study [72.46211022258122]
  Current AI systems struggle with calibrated reasoning under uncertainty.<n>We propose a framework for AI systems that can make practically useful but formally transparent clinical predictions under uncertainty.<n>We show how an initial proof-of-concept of this framework can be used for differential diagnosis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-10T19:30:16Z)
• Beyond Explainable AI (XAI): An Overdue Paradigm Shift and Post-XAI Research Directions [95.59915390053588]
  This study focuses on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) approaches-focusing on deep neural networks (DNNs) and large language models (LLMs)<n>We discuss critical symptoms that stem from deeper root causes (i.e., two paradoxes, two conceptual confusions, and five false assumptions)<n>To move beyond XAI's limitations, we propose a four-pronged paradigm shift toward reliable and certified AI development.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-27T16:58:27Z)
• Simulating Viva Voce Examinations to Evaluate Clinical Reasoning in Large Language Models [51.91760712805404]
  We introduce VivaBench, a benchmark for evaluating sequential clinical reasoning in large language models (LLMs)<n>Our dataset consists of 1762 physician-curated clinical vignettes structured as interactive scenarios that simulate a (oral) examination in medical training.<n>Our analysis identified several failure modes that mirror common cognitive errors in clinical practice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-11T16:24:35Z)
• Onto-Epistemological Analysis of AI Explanations [8.570570532582446]
  We discuss explainable AI (XAI) methods that provide explanations of the models' decision process.<n>We show how seemingly small technical changes to an XAI method may correspond to important differences in the underlying assumptions about explanations.<n>We also highlight the risks of ignoring the underlying onto-epistemological paradigm when choosing an XAI method for a given application.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-03T13:36:57Z)
• Medical Reasoning in the Era of LLMs: A Systematic Review of Enhancement Techniques and Applications [59.721265428780946]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) in medicine have enabled impressive capabilities, yet a critical gap remains in their ability to perform systematic, transparent, and verifiable reasoning.<n>This paper provides the first systematic review of this emerging field.<n>We propose a taxonomy of reasoning enhancement techniques, categorized into training-time strategies and test-time mechanisms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-01T14:41:31Z)
• Critique of Impure Reason: Unveiling the reasoning behaviour of medical Large Language Models [0.0]
  Despite the current ubiquity of Large Language Models (LLMs) across the medical domain, there is a surprising lack of studies which address their reasoning behaviour.<n>We emphasise the importance of understanding reasoning behaviour as opposed to high-level prediction accuracies, since it is equivalent to explainable AI (XAI) in this context.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-20T10:06:52Z)
• HiTZ@Antidote: Argumentation-driven Explainable Artificial Intelligence for Digital Medicine [7.089952396422835]
  ANTIDOTE fosters an integrated vision of explainable AI, where low-level characteristics of the deep learning process are combined with higher level schemes proper of the human argumentation capacity. As a first result of the project, we publish the Antidote CasiMedicos dataset to facilitate research on explainable AI in general, and argumentation in the medical domain in particular.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-09T16:50:02Z)
• Informing clinical assessment by contextualizing post-hoc explanations of risk prediction models in type-2 diabetes [50.8044927215346]
  We consider a comorbidity risk prediction scenario and focus on contexts regarding the patients clinical state. We employ several state-of-the-art LLMs to present contexts around risk prediction model inferences and evaluate their acceptability. Our paper is one of the first end-to-end analyses identifying the feasibility and benefits of contextual explanations in a real-world clinical use case.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-11T18:07:11Z)
• Achievements and Challenges in Explaining Deep Learning based Computer-Aided Diagnosis Systems [4.9449660544238085]
  We discuss early achievements in development of explainable AI for validation of known disease criteria. We highlight some of the remaining challenges that stand in the way of practical applications of AI as a clinical decision support tool.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-26T08:08:19Z)
• The role of explainability in creating trustworthy artificial intelligence for health care: a comprehensive survey of the terminology, design choices, and evaluation strategies [1.2762298148425795]
  Lack of transparency is identified as one of the main barriers to implementation of AI systems in health care. We review the recent literature to provide guidance to researchers and practitioners on the design of explainable AI systems. We conclude that explainable modelling can contribute to trustworthy AI, but the benefits of explainability still need to be proven in practice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-31T09:08:27Z)
• A general framework for scientifically inspired explanations in AI [76.48625630211943]
  We instantiate the concept of structure of scientific explanation as the theoretical underpinning for a general framework in which explanations for AI systems can be implemented. This framework aims to provide the tools to build a "mental-model" of any AI system so that the interaction with the user can provide information on demand and be closer to the nature of human-made explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-03-02T10:32:21Z)

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.