Interpretation of Artificial Intelligence Models in Healthcare
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) models can play a more effective role in managing patients with the explosion of digital health records available in the healthcare industry. Machine-learning (ML) and deep-learning (DL) techniques are two methods used to develop predictive models that serve to improve the clinical processes in the healthcare industry. These models are also implemented in medical imaging machines to empower them with an intelligent decision system to aid physicians in their decisions and increase the efficiency of their routine clinical practices. The physicians who are going to work with these machines need to have an insight into what happens in the background of the implemented models and how they work. More importantly, they need to be able to interpret their predictions, assess their performance, and compare them to find the one with the best performance and fewer errors. This review aims to provide an accessible overview of key evaluation metrics for physicians without AI expertise. In this review, we developed four real-world diagnostic AI models (two ML and two DL models) for breast cancer diagnosis using ultrasound images. Then, 23 of the most commonly used evaluation metrics were reviewed uncomplicatedly for physicians. Finally, all metrics were calculated and used practically to interpret and evaluate the outputs of the models. Accessible explanations and practical applications empower physicians to effectively interpret, evaluate, and optimize AI models to ensure safety and efficacy when integrated into clinical practice.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".