Challenges in Explaining Pretrained Clinical Text Classifiers
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Explaining the predictions of neural models in clinical NLP remains a significant challenge, especially for complex tasks involving long, unstructured medical texts. While post-hoc methods like LIME and SHAP are widely used, they often fall short when applied to clinical narratives. In this paper, we identify core limitations of token-level and perturbation-based explanation techniques through targeted demonstra- tions on a hospital length-of-stay prediction task. Our findings reveal issues such as overemphasis on non-informative tokens, instability in at- tributions, and high-confidence predictions for incoherent input variants. These results underscore the need for explanation strategies that are clin- ically meaningful, semantically grounded, and robust to linguistic noise.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 4 of its 15 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 May 2026.
Builds on
4 of 15 references.
References · 4
- 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,555
- 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,070
- 2019What Clinicians Want: Contextualizing Explainable Machine Learning for Clinical End Usecited by 135
- 2022Revisiting Transformer-based Models for Long Document Classificationcited by 49
Built on by
Not cited yet.