  Abstruse learning algorithms and complex datasets increasingly characterize
modern clinical decision support systems (CDSS). As a result, clinicians cannot
easily or rapidly scrutinize the CDSS recommendation when facing a difficult
diagnosis or treatment decision in practice. Over-trust or under-trust are
frequent. Prior research has explored supporting such assessments by explaining
DST data inputs and algorithmic mechanisms. This paper explores a different
approach: Providing precisely relevant, scientific evidence from biomedical
literature. We present a proof-of-concept system, Clinical Evidence Engine, to
demonstrate the technical and design feasibility of this approach across three
domains (cardiovascular diseases, autism, cancer). Leveraging Clinical BioBERT,
the system can effectively identify clinical trial reports based on lengthy
clinical questions (e.g., "risks of catheter infection among adult patients in
intensive care unit who require arterial catheters, if treated with povidone
iodine-alcohol"). This capability enables the system to identify clinical
trials relevant to diagnostic/treatment hypotheses -- a clinician's or a
CDSS's. Further, Clinical Evidence Engine can identify key parts of a clinical
trial abstract, including patient population (e.g., adult patients in intensive
care unit who require arterial catheters), intervention (povidone
iodine-alcohol), and outcome (risks of catheter infection). This capability
opens up the possibility of enabling clinicians to 1) rapidly determine the
match between a clinical trial and a clinical question, and 2) understand the
result and contexts of the trial without extensive reading. We demonstrate this
potential by illustrating two example use scenarios of the system. We discuss
the idea of designing DST explanations not as specific to a DST or an
algorithm, but as a domain-agnostic decision support infrastructure.
