Back

An Explainable Multimodal AI Framework with Reinforcement Learning for Post-Surgical Clinical Decision Support

Ahmed, M.; Ahmed, F.; Mow, S. M.; Taha, P. A.; Barua, S.; Rahman, M. M.; Rafy, A.; Mondol, S. M.; Faisal, M. I.

2026-06-10 health informatics
10.64898/2026.06.08.26355217 medRxiv
Show abstract

Post-surgical adverse outcomes, including mortality, intensive care readmission, and complications, remain major challenges for clinical decision-making. Existing machine learning approaches focus on outcome prediction while operating as opaque systems, limiting clinical trust and the translation of predictions into treatment decisions, and many clinical studies rely on synthetic data in which shared intermediate variables create circular dependencies between inputs and targets that compromise reported performance. We aimed to develop an explainable multimodal architecture and a rigorous evaluation methodology that address these gaps. We designed a two-stage architecture integrating supervised deep learning for risk prediction with conservative Q-learning for action recommendation. The first stage uses five modality-specific encoders for structured records, physiological time-series, chest radiographs, clinical notes, and surgical metadata, unified through cross-modal attention into a shared patient-state representation. The second stage applies offline reinforcement learning to recommend clinical actions while preventing value overestimation. We formally characterized a target-leakage flaw in synthetic pipelines and propose a real-data methodology using a verified clinical database, with event-censored temporal separation and uncertainty-weighted per-task training. Component-level behavior was validated on a controlled synthetic benchmark, demonstrating that the architecture functions as designed without claiming clinical validity. The cross-modal attention and risk-prediction components behaved as expected, whereas the offline reinforcement learning stage did not converge on the benchmark, indicating that value estimation requires further investigation on real clinical data. The architecture provides dual-level explainability through attention visualization and value decomposition, contributing a deployable design, a formal methodological critique of synthetic-data practices, and a complete framework for clinically valid evaluation.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
48.1%
2
Nature Machine Intelligence
61 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
7.2%
50% of probability mass above
3
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 35%
4.4%
4
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 36%
3.6%
5
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
45 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.3%
6
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.6%
7
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
2.6%
8
Patterns
70 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.9%
9
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
10
JMIR Medical Informatics
17 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.7%
11
IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics
34 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.5%
12
Science Advances
1098 papers in training set
Top 22%
1.3%
13
Artificial Intelligence in Medicine
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
14
Nature Biomedical Engineering
42 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
15
Nature Medicine
117 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
16
International Journal of Medical Informatics
25 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
17
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
18
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 65%
0.8%
19
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
20
Frontiers in Digital Health
20 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
21
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
22
Communications Medicine
85 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
23
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
18 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
24
JAMIA Open
37 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%