Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37045794›Full record

ReviewThe journal of pathology. Clinical research2023

Explainability and causability in digital pathology.

Markus Plass, Michaela Kargl, Tim-Rasmus Kiehl, Peter Regitnig, Christian Geißler, Theodore Evans, Norman Zerbe, Rita Carvalho, Andreas Holzinger, Heimo Müller

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The journal of pathology. Clinical research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing 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

40 citing papers in PubMed.

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

Markus PlassDiagnostic and Research Institute of Pathology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.ORCID 0000-0003-2718-7648
Michaela KarglDiagnostic and Research Institute of Pathology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Tim-Rasmus KiehlCharité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Institute of Pathology, Berlin, Germany.
Peter RegitnigDiagnostic and Research Institute of Pathology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Christian GeißlerDAI-Labor, Agent Oriented Technologies (AOT), Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Theodore EvansDAI-Labor, Agent Oriented Technologies (AOT), Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Norman ZerbeCharité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Institute of Pathology, Berlin, Germany.
Rita CarvalhoCharité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Institute of Pathology, Berlin, Germany.
Andreas HolzingerDiagnostic and Research Institute of Pathology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-6786-5194
Heimo MüllerDiagnostic and Research Institute of Pathology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-9691-4872

Funding

Austrian Science Fund FWF P-32554
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The current move towards digital pathology enables pathologists to use artificial intelligence (AI)-based computer programmes for the advanced analysis of whole slide images. However, currently, the best-performing AI algorithms for image analysis are deemed black boxes since it remains - even to their developers - often unclear why the algorithm delivered a particular result. Especially in medicine, a better understanding of algorithmic decisions is essential to avoid mistakes and adverse effects on patients. This review article aims to provide medical experts with insights on the issue of explainability in digital pathology. A short introduction to the relevant underlying core concepts of machine learning shall nurture the reader's understanding of why explainability is a specific issue in this field. Addressing this issue of explainability, the rapidly evolving research field of explainable AI (XAI) has developed many techniques and methods to make black-box machine-learning systems more transparent. These XAI methods are a first step towards making black-box AI systems understandable by humans. However, we argue that an explanation interface must complement these explainable models to make their results useful to human stakeholders and achieve a high level of causability, i.e. a high level of causal understanding by the user. This is especially relevant in the medical field since explainability and causability play a crucial role also for compliance with regulatory requirements. We conclude by promoting the need for novel user interfaces for AI applications in pathology, which enable contextual understanding and allow the medical expert to ask interactive 'what-if'-questions. In pathology, such user interfaces will not only be important to achieve a high level of causability. They will also be crucial for keeping the human-in-the-loop and bringing medical experts' experience and conceptual knowledge to AI processes.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligencePathologistsAlgorithmsHumansImage Processing, Computer-Assistedartificial intelligencecausabilitydigital pathologyexplainability

Identifiers

PMID37045794
PMCPMC10240147

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.