Enhancing the Interpretability of Malaria and Typhoid Diagnosis with Explainable AI and Large Language Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Malaria and Typhoid fever are prevalent diseases in tropical regions, exacerbated by unclear protocols, drug resistance, and environmental factors. Prompt and accurate diagnosis is crucial to improve accessibility and reduce mortality rates. Traditional diagnosis methods cannot effectively capture the complexities of these diseases due to the presence of confusable symptoms. Although machine learning (ML) models offer accurate predictions, they operate as "black boxes" with non-interpretable decision-making processes, making it challenging for healthcare providers to comprehend how the conclusions are reached. This study employs explainable AI (XAI) models such as Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations (LIME), and Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, Gemini, and Perplexity, to clarify diagnostic results for healthcare workers, building trust and transparency in medical diagnostics. The models were implemented on Google Colab and Visual Studio Code because of their rich libraries and extensions. Results showed that the Random Forest model outperformed Extreme Gradient Boost and Support Vector Machines and important features for predicting Malaria and Typhoid were identified with the LIME plots. Among LLMs, ChatGPT 3.5 demonstrates a comparative advantage over Gemini and Perplexity, hence highlighting how crucial it is to use a hybrid strategy that combines ML, XAI, and LLMs to improve diagnostic performance and reliability in healthcare applications. The study recommends implementing the integrated ML, LIME, and LLM processes because it streamlines the development and maintenance process's workflow overall, makes use of resources more effectively, and improves explainability by allowing the LLM to consider the complete context that LIME provides.
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 | 0.005 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".