Explainable Artificial Intelligence for Human Decision-Support System in Medical Domain
Authors: Samanta Knapič, Avleen Malhi, Rohit Saluja, Kary Främling
AI-generated Key Points
- Exploring the potential of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) methods for decision-support in medical image analysis scenarios
- Focusing on improving the comprehensibility of decisions made by a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) through visual explanations
- Applying three types of explainable methods - LIME, SHAP, and CIU - to a dataset of in-vivo gastral images obtained from Video capsule endoscopy (VCE)
- Goal: Increase trust among health professionals in CNN predictions
- Conducted three user studies using human evaluation with participants from non-medical backgrounds
- Findings suggest that the CIU method outperformed LIME and SHAP in terms of increasing support for human decision-making, transparency, and understandability
- CIU generated explanations more rapidly than the other two methods
- Future evaluations should involve domain experts and focus on application-grounded assessments specific to the use of explanations
- Expanding scope by testing explanations on more complex medical cases and applying them in real-life settings would enhance applicability
- Increasing sample size would provide more statistically meaningful outcomes
- Plan to generalize these explainable methods on different medical datasets with future improvements in implementation for decision-support in various scenarios
Abstract: In the present paper we present the potential of Explainable Artificial Intelligence methods for decision-support in medical image analysis scenarios. With three types of explainable methods applied to the same medical image data set our aim was to improve the comprehensibility of the decisions provided by the Convolutional Neural Network (CNN). The visual explanations were provided on in-vivo gastral images obtained from a Video capsule endoscopy (VCE), with the goal of increasing the health professionals' trust in the black box predictions. We implemented two post-hoc interpretable machine learning methods LIME and SHAP and the alternative explanation approach CIU, centered on the Contextual Value and Utility (CIU). The produced explanations were evaluated using human evaluation. We conducted three user studies based on the explanations provided by LIME, SHAP and CIU. Users from different non-medical backgrounds carried out a series of tests in the web-based survey setting and stated their experience and understanding of the given explanations. Three user groups (n=20, 20, 20) with three distinct forms of explanations were quantitatively analyzed. We have found that, as hypothesized, the CIU explainable method performed better than both LIME and SHAP methods in terms of increasing support for human decision-making as well as being more transparent and thus understandable to users. Additionally, CIU outperformed LIME and SHAP by generating explanations more rapidly. Our findings suggest that there are notable differences in human decision-making between various explanation support settings. In line with that, we present three potential explainable methods that can with future improvements in implementation be generalized on different medical data sets and can provide great decision-support for medical experts.
Tools for this paper
Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant
You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.
The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.
Similar papers summarized with our AI tools
Navigate through even more similar papers through a
tree representationLook for similar papers (in beta version)
We compare the title and abstract with papers indexed in our database. For arXiv papers, we search within the same category; for DOI and other sources, we search across sources and subjects. You can rerun the search as our database grows.
Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.