Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33032582›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2020

A qualitative research framework for the design of user-centered displays of explanations for machine learning model predictions in healthcare.

Amie J Barda, Christopher M Horvat, Harry Hochheiser

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Human-centered explainability evaluation in clinical decision-making: a critical review of the literature.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Amie J BardaDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, 5607 Baum Boulevard, Pittsburgh, PA, 15206, USA.
Christopher M HorvatChildren's Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC, Pittsburgh, PA, 15224, USA.
Harry HochheiserDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, 5607 Baum Boulevard, Pittsburgh, PA, 15206, USA. harryh@pitt.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-8793-9982

Funding

The internship in Biomedical Research, Informatics, and Computer Science (iBRIC): Biomedical Informatics and Data Science research experiences for students from Minority Serving InstitutionsT15LM007059 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI HARRY S HOCHHEISER · 1987 to 2026
$23.9M
A Learning Health System Approach to Precision Sedation and Analgesia in Critically-Ill ChildrenK23HD099331 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI HORVAT, CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL · 2020 to 2024
$810k
NICHD NIH HHS K23 HD099331NLM NIH HHS T15 LM007059
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is an increasing interest in clinical prediction tools that can achieve high prediction accuracy and provide explanations of the factors leading to increased risk of adverse outcomes. However, approaches to explaining complex machine learning (ML) models are rarely informed by end-user needs and user evaluations of model interpretability are lacking in the healthcare domain. We used extended revisions of previously-published theoretical frameworks to propose a framework for the design of user-centered displays of explanations. This new framework served as the basis for qualitative inquiries and design review sessions with critical care nurses and physicians that informed the design of a user-centered explanation display for an ML-based prediction tool.

methodsWe used our framework to propose explanation displays for predictions from a pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) in-hospital mortality risk model. Proposed displays were based on a model-agnostic, instance-level explanation approach based on feature influence, as determined by Shapley values. Focus group sessions solicited critical care provider feedback on the proposed displays, which were then revised accordingly.

resultsThe proposed displays were perceived as useful tools in assessing model predictions. However, specific explanation goals and information needs varied by clinical role and level of predictive modeling knowledge. Providers preferred explanation displays that required less information processing effort and could support the information needs of a variety of users. Providing supporting information to assist in interpretation was seen as critical for fostering provider understanding and acceptance of the predictions and explanations. The user-centered explanation display for the PICU in-hospital mortality risk model incorporated elements from the initial displays along with enhancements suggested by providers.

conclusionsWe proposed a framework for the design of user-centered displays of explanations for ML models. We used the proposed framework to motivate the design of a user-centered display of an explanation for predictions from a PICU in-hospital mortality risk model. Positive feedback from focus group participants provides preliminary support for the use of model-agnostic, instance-level explanations of feature influence as an approach to understand ML model predictions in healthcare and advances the discussion on how to effectively communicate ML model information to healthcare providers.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareHospital MortalityIntensive Care Units, PediatricMachine LearningChildFocus GroupsHealth PersonnelHumansQualitative ResearchClinical decision support systemsExplainable artificial intelligenceIn-hospital mortalityMachine learningPediatric intensive care unitsUser-computer interface

Identifiers

PMID33032582
PMCPMC7545557

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.