Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37731823›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in digital health2023

Embracing the uncertainty in human-machine collaboration to support clinical decision-making for mental health conditions.

Ram Popat, Julia Ive

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

2 authors.

Ram PopatDepartment of Computing, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Julia IveSchool of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Two significant obstacles exist preventing the widespread usage of Deep Learning (DL) models for predicting healthcare outcomes in general and mental health conditions in particular. Firstly, DL models do not quantify the uncertainty in their predictions, so clinicians are unsure of which predictions they can trust. Secondly, DL models do not triage, i.e., separate which cases could be best handled by the human or the model. This paper attempts to address these obstacles using Bayesian Deep Learning (BDL), which extends DL probabilistically and allows us to quantify the model's uncertainty, which we use to improve human-model collaboration. We implement a range of state-of-the-art DL models for Natural Language Processing and apply a range of BDL methods to these models. Taking a step closer to the real-life scenarios of human-AI collaboration, we propose a Referral Learning methodology for the models that make predictions for certain instances while referring the rest of the instances to a human expert for further assessment. The study demonstrates that models can significantly enhance their performance by seeking human assistance in cases where the model exhibits high uncertainty, which is closely linked to misclassifications. Referral Learning offers two options: (1) supporting humans in cases where the model predicts with certainty, and (2) triaging cases where the model evaluated when it had a better chance of being right than the human by evaluating human disagreement. The latter method combines model uncertainty from BDL and human disagreement from multiple annotations, resulting in improved triaging capabilities.

Indexed as

Bayesian Deep Learninghuman–machine collaborationhuman uncertaintymental health conditionsuncertainty

Identifiers

PMID37731823
PMCPMC10508184

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.