A Roadmap for Automating Lineage Tracing to Aid Automatically Explaining Machine Learning Predictions for Clinical Decision Support
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using machine learning predictive models for clinical decision support has great potential in improving patient outcomes and reducing health care costs. However, most machine learning models are black boxes that do not explain their predictions, thereby forming a barrier to clinical adoption. To overcome this barrier, an automated method was recently developed to provide rule-style explanations of any machine learning model's predictions on tabular data and to suggest customized interventions. Each explanation delineates the association between a feature value pattern and an outcome value. Although the association and intervention information is useful, the user of the automated explaining function often requires more detailed information to better understand the patient's situation and to aid in decision making. More specifically, consider a feature value in the explanation that is computed by an aggregation function on the raw data, such as the number of emergency department visits related to asthma that the patient had in the prior 12 months. The user often wants to rapidly drill through to see certain parts of the related raw data that produce the feature value. This task is frequently difficult and time-consuming because the few pieces of related raw data are submerged by many pieces of raw data of the patient that are unrelated to the feature value. To address this issue, this paper outlines an automated lineage tracing approach, which adds automated drill-through capability to the automated explaining function, and provides a roadmap for future research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".