Explaining graph convolutional network predictions for clinicians—An explainable AI approach to Alzheimer's disease classification
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Graph-based representations are becoming more common in the medical domain, where each node defines a patient, and the edges signify associations between patients, relating individuals with disease and symptoms in a node classification task. In this study, a Graph Convolutional Networks (GCN) model was utilized to capture differences in neurocognitive, genetic, and brain atrophy patterns that can predict cognitive status, ranging from Normal Cognition (NC) to Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's Disease (AD), on the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) database. Elucidating model predictions is vital in medical applications to promote clinical adoption and establish physician trust. Therefore, we introduce a decomposition-based explanation method for individual patient classification. Methods: Our method involves analyzing the output variations resulting from decomposing input values, which allows us to determine the degree of impact on the prediction. Through this process, we gain insight into how each feature from various modalities, both at the individual and group levels, contributes to the diagnostic result. Given that graph data contains critical information in edges, we studied relational data by silencing all the edges of a particular class, thereby obtaining explanations at the neighborhood level. Results: Our functional evaluation showed that the explanations remain stable with minor changes in input values, specifically for edge weights exceeding 0.80. Additionally, our comparative analysis against SHAP values yielded comparable results with significantly reduced computational time. To further validate the model's explanations, we conducted a survey study with 11 domain experts. The majority (71%) of the responses confirmed the correctness of the explanations, with a rating of above six on a 10-point scale for the understandability of the explanations. Discussion: Strategies to overcome perceived limitations, such as the GCN's overreliance on demographic information, were discussed to facilitate future adoption into clinical practice and gain clinicians' trust as a diagnostic decision support system.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it