Explainable AI Enhances Glaucoma Referrals, Yet the Human-AI Team Still Falls Short of the AI Alone

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.11974v1
• Date: Fri, 24 May 2024 03:01:20 GMT
• Title: Explainable AI Enhances Glaucoma Referrals, Yet the Human-AI Team Still Falls Short of the AI Alone
• Authors: Catalina Gomez, Ruolin Wang, Katharina Breininger, Corinne Casey, Chris Bradley, Mitchell Pavlak, Alex Pham, Jithin Yohannan, Mathias Unberath,
• Abstract summary: We investigate how various AI explanations help providers distinguish between patients needing immediate or non-urgent specialist referrals. We built explainable AI algorithms to predict glaucoma surgery needs from routine eyecare data as a proxy for identifying high-risk patients. We incorporated intrinsic and post-hoc explainability and conducted an online study with optometrists to assess human-AI team performance.
• Score: 6.740852152639975
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Primary care providers are vital for initial triage and referrals to specialty care. In glaucoma, asymptomatic and fast progression can lead to vision loss, necessitating timely referrals to specialists. However, primary eye care providers may not identify urgent cases, potentially delaying care. Artificial Intelligence (AI) offering explanations could enhance their referral decisions. We investigate how various AI explanations help providers distinguish between patients needing immediate or non-urgent specialist referrals. We built explainable AI algorithms to predict glaucoma surgery needs from routine eyecare data as a proxy for identifying high-risk patients. We incorporated intrinsic and post-hoc explainability and conducted an online study with optometrists to assess human-AI team performance, measuring referral accuracy and analyzing interactions with AI, including agreement rates, task time, and user experience perceptions. AI support enhanced referral accuracy among 87 participants (59.9%/50.8% with/without AI), though Human-AI teams underperformed compared to AI alone. Participants believed they included AI advice more when using the intrinsic model, and perceived it more useful and promising. Without explanations, deviations from AI recommendations increased. AI support did not increase workload, confidence, and trust, but reduced challenges. On a separate test set, our black-box and intrinsic models achieved an accuracy of 77% and 71%, respectively, in predicting surgical outcomes. We identify opportunities of human-AI teaming for glaucoma management in primary eye care, noting that while AI enhances referral accuracy, it also shows a performance gap compared to AI alone, even with explanations. Human involvement remains essential in medical decision making, underscoring the need for future research to optimize collaboration, ensuring positive experiences and safe AI use.

Related papers

• Raising the Stakes: Performance Pressure Improves AI-Assisted Decision Making [57.53469908423318]
  We show the effects of performance pressure on AI advice reliance when laypeople complete a common AI-assisted task. We find that when the stakes are high, people use AI advice more appropriately than when stakes are lower, regardless of the presence of an AI explanation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-21T22:39:52Z)
• The Limits of Perception: Analyzing Inconsistencies in Saliency Maps in XAI [0.0]
  Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) plays an indispensable role in demystifying the decision-making processes of AI. As they operate as "black boxes," with their reasoning obscured and inaccessible, there's an increased risk of misdiagnosis. This shift towards transparency is not just beneficial -- it's a critical step towards responsible AI integration in healthcare.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-23T02:15:23Z)
• Understanding the Effect of Counterfactual Explanations on Trust and Reliance on AI for Human-AI Collaborative Clinical Decision Making [5.381004207943597]
  We conducted an experiment with seven therapists and ten laypersons on the task of assessing post-stroke survivors' quality of motion. We analyzed their performance, agreement level on the task, and reliance on AI without and with two types of AI explanations. Our work discusses the potential of counterfactual explanations to better estimate the accuracy of an AI model and reduce over-reliance on wrong' AI outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-08T16:23:46Z)
• The Role of AI in Drug Discovery: Challenges, Opportunities, and Strategies [97.5153823429076]
  The benefits, challenges and drawbacks of AI in this field are reviewed. The use of data augmentation, explainable AI, and the integration of AI with traditional experimental methods are also discussed.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-08T23:23:39Z)
• Seamful XAI: Operationalizing Seamful Design in Explainable AI [59.89011292395202]
  Mistakes in AI systems are inevitable, arising from both technical limitations and sociotechnical gaps. We propose that seamful design can foster AI explainability by revealing sociotechnical and infrastructural mismatches. We explore this process with 43 AI practitioners and real end-users.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-12T21:54:05Z)
• Advancing Human-AI Complementarity: The Impact of User Expertise and Algorithmic Tuning on Joint Decision Making [10.890854857970488]
  Many factors can impact success of Human-AI teams, including a user's domain expertise, mental models of an AI system, trust in recommendations, and more. Our study examined user performance in a non-trivial blood vessel labeling task where participants indicated whether a given blood vessel was flowing or stalled. Our results show that while recommendations from an AI-Assistant can aid user decision making, factors such as users' baseline performance relative to the AI and complementary tuning of AI error types significantly impact overall team performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-16T21:39:58Z)
• Who Goes First? Influences of Human-AI Workflow on Decision Making in Clinical Imaging [24.911186503082465]
  This study explores the effects of providing AI assistance at the start of a diagnostic session in radiology versus after the radiologist has made a provisional decision. We found that participants who are asked to register provisional responses in advance of reviewing AI inferences are less likely to agree with the AI regardless of whether the advice is accurate and, in instances of disagreement with the AI, are less likely to seek the second opinion of a colleague.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-19T16:59:25Z)
• Cybertrust: From Explainable to Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) [58.981120701284816]
  Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) will incorporate explicit quantifications and visualizations of user confidence in AI recommendations. It will allow examining and testing of AI system predictions to establish a basis for trust in the systems' decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-26T18:53:09Z)
• To Trust or to Think: Cognitive Forcing Functions Can Reduce Overreliance on AI in AI-assisted Decision-making [4.877174544937129]
  People supported by AI-powered decision support tools frequently overrely on the AI. Adding explanations to the AI decisions does not appear to reduce the overreliance. Our research suggests that human cognitive motivation moderates the effectiveness of explainable AI solutions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-19T00:38:53Z)
• Is the Most Accurate AI the Best Teammate? Optimizing AI for Teamwork [54.309495231017344]
  We argue that AI systems should be trained in a human-centered manner, directly optimized for team performance. We study this proposal for a specific type of human-AI teaming, where the human overseer chooses to either accept the AI recommendation or solve the task themselves. Our experiments with linear and non-linear models on real-world, high-stakes datasets show that the most accuracy AI may not lead to highest team performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-27T19:06:28Z)
• Effect of Confidence and Explanation on Accuracy and Trust Calibration in AI-Assisted Decision Making [53.62514158534574]
  We study whether features that reveal case-specific model information can calibrate trust and improve the joint performance of the human and AI. We show that confidence score can help calibrate people's trust in an AI model, but trust calibration alone is not sufficient to improve AI-assisted decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-07T15:33:48Z)

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.