Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the advent of machine learning (ML) applications in daily life, the questions about liability, trust, and interpretability of their outputs are raising, especially for healthcare applications. The black-box nature of ML models is a roadblock for clinical utilization. Therefore, to gain the trust of clinicians and patients, researchers need to provide explanations of how and why the model is making a specific decision. With the promise of enhancing the trust and transparency of black-box models, researchers are in the phase of maturing the field of eXplainable ML (XML). In this paper, we provide a comprehensive review of explainable and interpretable ML techniques implemented for providing the reasons behind their decisions for various healthcare applications. Along with highlighting various security, safety, and robustness challenges that hinder the trustworthiness of ML we also discussed the ethical issues of healthcare ML and describe how explainable and trustworthy ML can resolve these ethical problems. Finally, we elaborate on the limitations of existing approaches and highlight various open research problems that require further development.
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 | 0.014 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".