Trustworthy Explanations for Knowledge Discovered from E-Health Records
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the current era of big data, very large amounts of data are generating at a rapid rate from a wide variety of rich data sources. Electronic health (e-health) records are examples of the big data. With the technological advancements, more healthcare practice has gradually been supported by electronic processes and communication. This enables health informatics, in which computer science meets the healthcare sector to address healthcare and medical problems. Embedded in the big data are valuable information and knowledge that can be discovered by data science, data mining and machine learning techniques. Many of these techniques apply "opaque box" approaches to make accurate predictions. However, these techniques may not be crystal clear to the users. As the users not necessarily be able to clearly view the entire knowledge discovery (e.g., prediction) process, they may not easily trust the discovered knowledge (e.g., predictions). Hence, in this paper, we present a system for providing trustworthy explanations for knowledge discovered from e-health records. Specifically, our system provides users with global explanations for the important features among the records. It also provides users with local explanations for a particular record. Evaluation results on real-life e-health records show the practicality of our system in providing trustworthy explanations to knowledge discovered (e.g., accurate predictions made).
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 | 0.010 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".