ArticleFrontiers in big data2021
Interpretability of Machine Learning Solutions in Public Healthcare: The CRISP-ML Approach.
Article in Frontiers in big data, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Interpretability of Clinical Decision Support Systems Based on Artificial Intelligence from Technological and Medical Perspective: A Systematic Review.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2023Pooled it
- The Digital Transformation of Rehabilitation Medicine: A Narrative Review of Artificial Intelligence Innovations, Clinical Integration, and Future Paradigms.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2026Review
- Multi-view contrastive learning and symptom extraction insights for medical report generation.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- A Comprehensive Dataset for Activity of Daily Living (ADL) Research Compiled by Unifying and Processing Multiple Data Sources.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Article
- An analytic research and review of the literature on practice of artificial intelligence in healthcare.European journal of medical research · 2025Review
- Comparison of dynamic mode decomposition with other data-driven models for lung cancer incidence rate prediction.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Change in lifestyle and mental health in young adults: an exploratory study with hybrid machine learning.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- A machine-learned model for predicting weight loss success using weight change features early in treatment.NPJ digital medicine · 2024Article
- Artificial intelligence for dementia prevention.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2023Review
- The Ethics of Risk Prediction for Psychosis and Suicide Attempt in Youth Mental Health.The Journal of pediatrics · 2023Review
- A Hybrid Algorithm of ML and XAI to Prevent Breast Cancer: A Strategy to Support Decision Making.Cancers · 2023Article
- Common statistical concepts in the supervised Machine Learning arena.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Review
- Multimodal machine learning in precision health: A scoping review.NPJ digital medicine · 2022Article
- A Perspective on a Quality Management System for AI/ML-Based Clinical Decision Support in Hospital Care.Frontiers in digital health · 2022Article
- Prediction of septic and hypovolemic shock in intensive care unit patients using machine learning.Revista Brasileira de terapia intensivaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Public healthcare has a history of cautious adoption for artificial intelligence (AI) systems. The rapid growth of data collection and linking capabilities combined with the increasing diversity of the data-driven AI techniques, including machine learning (ML), has brought both ubiquitous opportunities for data analytics projects and increased demands for the regulation and accountability of the outcomes of these projects. As a result, the area of interpretability and explainability of ML is gaining significant research momentum. While there has been some progress in the development of ML methods, the methodological side has shown limited progress. This limits the practicality of using ML in the health domain: the issues with explaining the outcomes of ML algorithms to medical practitioners and policy makers in public health has been a recognized obstacle to the broader adoption of data science approaches in this domain. This study builds on the earlier work which introduced CRISP-ML, a methodology that determines the interpretability level required by stakeholders for a successful real-world solution and then helps in achieving it. CRISP-ML was built on the strengths of CRISP-DM, addressing the gaps in handling interpretability. Its application in the Public Healthcare sector follows its successful deployment in a number of recent real-world projects across several industries and fields, including credit risk, insurance, utilities, and sport. This study elaborates on the CRISP-ML methodology on the determination, measurement, and achievement of the necessary level of interpretability of ML solutions in the Public Healthcare sector. It demonstrates how CRISP-ML addressed the problems with data diversity, the unstructured nature of data, and relatively low linkage between diverse data sets in the healthcare domain. The characteristics of the case study, used in the study, are typical for healthcare data, and CRISP-ML managed to deliver on these issues, ensuring the required level of interpretability of the ML solutions discussed in the project. The approach used ensured that interpretability requirements were met, taking into account public healthcare specifics, regulatory requirements, project stakeholders, project objectives, and data characteristics. The study concludes with the three main directions for the development of the presented cross-industry standard process.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.