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

Ensuring trust in AI systems is essential for the safe and ethical integration of machine learning systems into high-stakes domains such as digital health. Key dimensions, including robustness, explainability, fairness, accountability, and privacy, need to be addressed throughout the AI lifecycle, from problem formulation and data collection to model deployment and human interaction. While various contributions address different aspects of trustworthy AI, a focused synthesis on robustness and explainability, especially tailored to the healthcare context, remains limited. This review addresses that need by organizing recent advancements into an accessible framework, highlighting both technical and practical considerations. We present a structured overview of methods, challenges, and solutions, aiming to support researchers and practitioners in developing reliable and explainable AI solutions for digital health. This review article is organized into three main parts. First, we introduce the pillars of trustworthy AI and discuss the technical and ethical challenges, particularly in the context of digital health. Second, we explore application-specific trust considerations across domains such as intensive care, neonatal health, and metabolic health, highlighting how robustness and explainability support trust. Lastly, we present recent advancements in techniques aimed at improving robustness under data scarcity and distributional shifts, as well as explainable AI methods ranging from feature attribution to gradient-based interpretations and counterfactual explanations. This paper is further enriched with detailed discussions of the contributions toward robustness and explainability in digital health, the development of trustworthy AI systems in the era of LLMs, and various evaluation metrics for measuring trust and related parameters such as validity, fidelity, and diversity.

Explainable AI (XAI) methods identify which features are relevant to a model's predictions but often fail to clarify why certain decisions are made. In this work, we present a novel method that integrates causality with argument-based reasoning to explain why models may be making predictions. Our approach first identifies causal relationships among variables using causal discovery methods and then translates these into a Bipolar Argumentation Framework (BAF) to represent supportive and opposing interactions among features. By using semi-stable semantics, we find extensions of features that explain why certain outcomes may have been chosen. We demonstrate our method on two benchmark datasets and compare its results against standard post-hoc explainability approaches.

Medical imaging has served as primary proving ground for clinical artificial intelligence (AI), yet a decade of intense research has not translated into proportionate bedside impact. We argue that this gap is not primarily a product of insufficient algorithmic performance, inadequate regulation, or limited explainability. Rather, it reflects a structural misalignment, between how AI systems are designed and evaluated, and how clinical decisions are made. This Perspective identifies six interconnected dimensions of this misalignment: the dominance of pixel-only models in a multimodal clinical world; the erosion of physician trust through opaque and inflexible systems; the unfulfilled promise of foundation models in data-sparse medical domains; the persistent bottleneck of non-shareable, under-curated datasets; the gap between validated algorithms and deployable clinical platforms; and the failure of prediction-centric AI to generate actionable clinical guidance. For each dimension, we reframe the problem and propose a path forward, culminating in a vision of agentic, physician-aligned AI that extends, rather than replaces, clinical judgment.