Integrating Explainable Machine Learning in Clinical Decision Support Systems: Study Involving a Modified Design Thinking Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Though there has been considerable effort to implement machine learning (ML) methods for health care, clinical implementation has lagged. Incorporating explainable machine learning (XML) methods through the development of a decision support tool using a design thinking approach is expected to lead to greater uptake of such tools. OBJECTIVE: This work aimed to explore how constant engagement of clinician end users can address the lack of adoption of ML tools in clinical contexts due to their lack of transparency and address challenges related to presenting explainability in a decision support interface. METHODS: We used a design thinking approach augmented with additional theoretical frameworks to provide more robust approaches to different phases of design. In particular, in the problem definition phase, we incorporated the nonadoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, and sustainability of technology in health care (NASSS) framework to assess these aspects in a health care network. This process helped focus on the development of a prognostic tool that predicted the likelihood of admission to an intensive care ward based on disease severity in chest x-ray images. In the ideate, prototype, and test phases, we incorporated a metric framework to assess physician trust in artificial intelligence (AI) tools. This allowed us to compare physicians' assessments of the domain representation, action ability, and consistency of the tool. RESULTS: Physicians found the design of the prototype elegant, and domain appropriate representation of data was displayed in the tool. They appreciated the simplified explainability overlay, which only displayed the most predictive patches that cumulatively explained 90% of the final admission risk score. Finally, in terms of consistency, physicians unanimously appreciated the capacity to compare multiple x-ray images in the same view. They also appreciated the ability to toggle the explainability overlay so that both options made it easier for them to assess how consistently the tool was identifying elements of the x-ray image they felt would contribute to overall disease severity. CONCLUSIONS: The adopted approach is situated in an evolving space concerned with incorporating XML or AI technologies into health care software. We addressed the alignment of AI as it relates to clinician trust, describing an approach to wire framing and prototyping, which incorporates the use of a theoretical framework for trust in the design process itself. Moreover, we proposed that alignment of AI is dependent upon integration of end users throughout the larger design process. Our work shows the importance and value of engaging end users prior to tool development. We believe that the described approach is a unique and valuable contribution that outlines a direction for ML experts, user experience designers, and clinician end users on how to collaborate in the creation of trustworthy and usable XML-based clinical decision support tools.
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 | 0.055 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".