MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3164811543 · doi:10.3233/shti210215

Towards a Knowledge Graph-Based Explainable Decision Support System in Healthcare

2021· book-chapter· en· W3164811543 on OpenAlexaff
Enayat Rajabi, Kobra Etminani

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in health technology and informatics · 2021
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsCape Breton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKnowledge graphComputer scienceDecision support systemHealth professionalsClinical decision support systemHealth careHealthcare systemGraphKnowledge managementArtificial intelligenceData scienceTheoretical computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The decisions derived from AI-based clinical decision support systems should be explainable and transparent so that the healthcare professionals can understand the rationale behind the predictions. To improve the explanations, knowledge graphs are a well-suited choice to be integrated into eXplainable AI. In this paper, we introduce a knowledge graph-based explainable framework for AI-based clinical decision support systems to increase their level of explainability.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.658
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.173
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.306 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in health technology and informaticsSame topicArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207