Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36776958›Full record

SynthesisJournal of healthcare engineering2023

Interpretability of Clinical Decision Support Systems Based on Artificial Intelligence from Technological and Medical Perspective: A Systematic Review.

Qian Xu, Wenzhao Xie, Bolin Liao, Chao Hu, Lu Qin, Zhengzijin Yang, Huan Xiong, Yi Lyu, Yue Zhou, Aijing Luo

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of healthcare engineering, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
62citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

62 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

2 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

10 authors.

Qian XuThe Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, No. 139, Renmin Road Central, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Wenzhao XieKey Laboratory of Medical Information Research, The Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, College of Hunan Province, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Bolin LiaoCollege of Computer Science and Engineering, Jishou University, Jishou, Hunan, China.
Chao HuBig Data Institute, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China.
Lu QinSchool of Life Sciences, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Zhengzijin YangSchool of Life Sciences, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Huan XiongSchool of Life Sciences, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Yi LyuSchool of Life Sciences, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Yue ZhouSchool of Life Sciences, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Aijing LuoThe Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, No. 139, Renmin Road Central, Changsha, Hunan, China.ORCID 0000-0001-5890-3470

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) has developed rapidly, and its application extends to clinical decision support system (CDSS) for improving healthcare quality. However, the interpretability of AI-driven CDSS poses significant challenges to widespread application. Objective: This study is a review of the knowledge-based and data-based CDSS literature regarding interpretability in health care. It highlights the relevance of interpretability for CDSS and the area for improvement from technological and medical perspectives. Methods: A systematic search was conducted on the interpretability-related literature published from 2011 to 2020 and indexed in the five databases: Web of Science, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Cochrane, and Scopus. Journal articles that focus on the interpretability of CDSS were included for analysis. Experienced researchers also participated in manually reviewing the selected articles for inclusion/exclusion and categorization. Results: Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 20 articles from 16 journals were finally selected for this review. Interpretability, which means a transparent structure of the model, a clear relationship between input and output, and explainability of artificial intelligence algorithms, is essential for CDSS application in the healthcare setting. Methods for improving the interpretability of CDSS include ante-hoc methods such as fuzzy logic, decision rules, logistic regression, decision trees for knowledge-based AI, and white box models, post hoc methods such as feature importance, sensitivity analysis, visualization, and activation maximization for black box models. A number of factors, such as data type, biomarkers, human-AI interaction, needs of clinicians, and patients, can affect the interpretability of CDSS. Conclusions: The review explores the meaning of the interpretability of CDSS and summarizes the current methods for improving interpretability from technological and medical perspectives. The results contribute to the understanding of the interpretability of CDSS based on AI in health care. Future studies should focus on establishing formalism for defining interpretability, identifying the properties of interpretability, and developing an appropriate and objective metric for interpretability; in addition, the user's demand for interpretability and how to express and provide explanations are also the directions for future research.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceDecision Support Systems, ClinicalAlgorithmsDelivery of Health CareHumansKnowledge Bases

Identifiers

PMID36776958
PMCPMC9918364

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.