Explainable Artificial Intelligence Recommendation System by Leveraging the Semantics of Adverse Childhood Experiences: Proof-of-Concept Prototype Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The study of adverse childhood experiences and their consequences has emerged over the past 20 years. Although the conclusions from these studies are available, the same is not true of the data. Accordingly, it is a complex problem to build a training set and develop machine-learning models from these studies. Classic machine learning and artificial intelligence techniques cannot provide a full scientific understanding of the inner workings of the underlying models. This raises credibility issues due to the lack of transparency and generalizability. Explainable artificial intelligence is an emerging approach for promoting credibility, accountability, and trust in mission-critical areas such as medicine by combining machine-learning approaches with explanatory techniques that explicitly show what the decision criteria are and why (or how) they have been established. Hence, thinking about how machine learning could benefit from knowledge graphs that combine "common sense" knowledge as well as semantic reasoning and causality models is a potential solution to this problem. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aimed to leverage explainable artificial intelligence, and propose a proof-of-concept prototype for a knowledge-driven evidence-based recommendation system to improve mental health surveillance. METHODS: We used concepts from an ontology that we have developed to build and train a question-answering agent using the Google DialogFlow engine. In addition to the question-answering agent, the initial prototype includes knowledge graph generation and recommendation components that leverage third-party graph technology. RESULTS: To showcase the framework functionalities, we here present a prototype design and demonstrate the main features through four use case scenarios motivated by an initiative currently implemented at a children's hospital in Memphis, Tennessee. Ongoing development of the prototype requires implementing an optimization algorithm of the recommendations, incorporating a privacy layer through a personal health library, and conducting a clinical trial to assess both usability and usefulness of the implementation. CONCLUSIONS: This semantic-driven explainable artificial intelligence prototype can enhance health care practitioners' ability to provide explanations for the decisions they make.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".