Explainable AI for clinical risk prediction: a survey of concepts, methods, and modalities

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2308.08407v1
• Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2023 14:51:51 GMT
• Title: Explainable AI for clinical risk prediction: a survey of concepts, methods, and modalities
• Authors: Munib Mesinovic, Peter Watkinson, Tingting Zhu
• Abstract summary: Review of progress in developing explainable models for clinical risk prediction. emphasizes the need for external validation and the combination of diverse interpretability methods. End-to-end approach to explainability in clinical risk prediction is essential for success.
• Score: 2.9404725327650767
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Recent advancements in AI applications to healthcare have shown incredible promise in surpassing human performance in diagnosis and disease prognosis. With the increasing complexity of AI models, however, concerns regarding their opacity, potential biases, and the need for interpretability. To ensure trust and reliability in AI systems, especially in clinical risk prediction models, explainability becomes crucial. Explainability is usually referred to as an AI system's ability to provide a robust interpretation of its decision-making logic or the decisions themselves to human stakeholders. In clinical risk prediction, other aspects of explainability like fairness, bias, trust, and transparency also represent important concepts beyond just interpretability. In this review, we address the relationship between these concepts as they are often used together or interchangeably. This review also discusses recent progress in developing explainable models for clinical risk prediction, highlighting the importance of quantitative and clinical evaluation and validation across multiple common modalities in clinical practice. It emphasizes the need for external validation and the combination of diverse interpretability methods to enhance trust and fairness. Adopting rigorous testing, such as using synthetic datasets with known generative factors, can further improve the reliability of explainability methods. Open access and code-sharing resources are essential for transparency and reproducibility, enabling the growth and trustworthiness of explainable research. While challenges exist, an end-to-end approach to explainability in clinical risk prediction, incorporating stakeholders from clinicians to developers, is essential for success.

Related papers

• TrialBench: Multi-Modal Artificial Intelligence-Ready Clinical Trial Datasets [57.067409211231244]
  This paper presents meticulously curated AIready datasets covering multi-modal data (e.g., drug molecule, disease code, text, categorical/numerical features) and 8 crucial prediction challenges in clinical trial design. We provide basic validation methods for each task to ensure the datasets' usability and reliability. We anticipate that the availability of such open-access datasets will catalyze the development of advanced AI approaches for clinical trial design.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-30T09:13:10Z)
• Fair by design: A sociotechnical approach to justifying the fairness of AI-enabled systems across the lifecycle [0.8164978442203773]
  Fairness is one of the most commonly identified ethical principles in existing AI guidelines. The development of fair AI-enabled systems is required by new and emerging AI regulation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-13T12:03:29Z)
• Explainable AI for Fair Sepsis Mortality Predictive Model [3.556697333718976]
  We propose a method that learns a performance-optimized predictive model and employs the transfer learning process to produce a model with better fairness. Our method not only aids in identifying and mitigating biases within the predictive model but also fosters trust among healthcare stakeholders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-19T18:56:46Z)
• Explainable AI for Malnutrition Risk Prediction from m-Health and Clinical Data [3.093890460224435]
  This paper presents a novel AI framework for early and explainable malnutrition risk detection based on heterogeneous m-health data. We performed an extensive model evaluation including both subject-independent and personalised predictions. We also investigated several benchmark XAI methods to extract global model explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-31T08:07:35Z)
• 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)
• Can Current Explainability Help Provide References in Clinical Notes to Support Humans Annotate Medical Codes? [53.45585591262433]
  We present an explainable Read, Attend, and Code (xRAC) framework and assess two approaches, attention score-based xRAC-ATTN and model-agnostic knowledge-distillation-based xRAC-KD. We find that the supporting evidence text highlighted by xRAC-ATTN is of higher quality than xRAC-KD whereas xRAC-KD has potential advantages in production deployment scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-28T04:06:07Z)
• Exploring the Trade-off between Plausibility, Change Intensity and Adversarial Power in Counterfactual Explanations using Multi-objective Optimization [73.89239820192894]
  We argue that automated counterfactual generation should regard several aspects of the produced adversarial instances. We present a novel framework for the generation of counterfactual examples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-20T15:02:53Z)
• Clinical Outcome Prediction from Admission Notes using Self-Supervised Knowledge Integration [55.88616573143478]
  Outcome prediction from clinical text can prevent doctors from overlooking possible risks. Diagnoses at discharge, procedures performed, in-hospital mortality and length-of-stay prediction are four common outcome prediction targets. We propose clinical outcome pre-training to integrate knowledge about patient outcomes from multiple public sources.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-08T10:26:44Z)
• Uncertainty as a Form of Transparency: Measuring, Communicating, and Using Uncertainty [66.17147341354577]
  We argue for considering a complementary form of transparency by estimating and communicating the uncertainty associated with model predictions. We describe how uncertainty can be used to mitigate model unfairness, augment decision-making, and build trustworthy systems. This work constitutes an interdisciplinary review drawn from literature spanning machine learning, visualization/HCI, design, decision-making, and fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-15T17:26:14Z)
• 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)

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.