Ranking Rule-Based Automatic Explanations for Machine Learning Predictions on Asthma Hospital Encounters in Patients With Asthma: Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Asthma hospital encounters impose a heavy burden on the health care system. To improve preventive care and outcomes for patients with asthma, we recently developed a black-box machine learning model to predict whether a patient with asthma will have one or more asthma hospital encounters in the succeeding 12 months. Our model is more accurate than previous models. However, black-box machine learning models do not explain their predictions, which forms a barrier to widespread clinical adoption. To solve this issue, we previously developed a method to automatically provide rule-based explanations for the model's predictions and to suggest tailored interventions without sacrificing model performance. For an average patient correctly predicted by our model to have future asthma hospital encounters, our explanation method generated over 5000 rule-based explanations, if any. However, the user of the automated explanation function, often a busy clinician, will want to quickly obtain the most useful information for a patient by viewing only the top few explanations. Therefore, a methodology is required to appropriately rank the explanations generated for a patient. However, this is currently an open problem. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to develop a method to appropriately rank the rule-based explanations that our automated explanation method generates for a patient. METHODS: We developed a ranking method that struck a balance among multiple factors. Through a secondary analysis of 82,888 data instances of adults with asthma from the University of Washington Medicine between 2011 and 2018, we demonstrated our ranking method on the test case of predicting asthma hospital encounters in patients with asthma. RESULTS: For each patient predicted to have asthma hospital encounters in the succeeding 12 months, the top few explanations returned by our ranking method typically have high quality and low redundancy. Many top-ranked explanations provide useful insights on the various aspects of the patient's situation, which cannot be easily obtained by viewing the patient's data in the current electronic health record system. CONCLUSIONS: The explanation ranking module is an essential component of the automated explanation function, and it addresses the interpretability issue that deters the widespread adoption of machine learning predictive models in clinical practice. In the next few years, we plan to test our explanation ranking method on predictive modeling problems addressing other diseases as well as on data from other health care systems. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/5039.
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 | 0.012 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".