A review of Explainable Artificial Intelligence in healthcare
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
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) encompasses the strategies and methodologies used in constructing AI systems that enable end-users to comprehend and interpret the outputs and predictions made by AI models. The increasing deployment of opaque AI applications in high-stakes fields, particularly healthcare, has amplified the need for clarity and explainability. This stems from the potential high-impact consequences of erroneous AI predictions in such critical sectors. The effective integration of AI models in healthcare hinges on the capacity of these models to be both explainable and interpretable. Gaining the trust of healthcare professionals necessitates AI applications to be transparent about their decision-making processes and underlying logic. Our paper conducts a systematic review of the various facets and challenges of XAI within the healthcare realm. It aims to dissect a range of XAI methodologies and their applications in healthcare, categorizing them into six distinct groups: feature-oriented methods, global methods, concept models, surrogate models, local pixel-based methods, and human-centric approaches. Specifically, this study focuses on the significance of XAI in addressing healthcare-related challenges, underscoring its vital role in safety-critical scenarios. Our objective is to provide an exhaustive exploration of XAI's applications in healthcare, alongside an analysis of relevant experimental outcomes, thereby fostering a holistic understanding of XAI's role and potential in this critical domain.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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