ArticlePloS one2024
Visual explanations for polyp detection: How medical doctors assess intrinsic versus extrinsic explanations.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Human-centered explainability evaluation in clinical decision-making: a critical review of the literature.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025Review
- Exploring the clinical value of concept-based AI explanations in gastrointestinal disease detection.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Deep learning has achieved immense success in computer vision and has the potential to help physicians analyze visual content for disease and other abnormalities. However, the current state of deep learning is very much a black box, making medical professionals skeptical about integrating these methods into clinical practice. Several methods have been proposed to shed some light on these black boxes, but there is no consensus on the opinion of medical doctors that will consume these explanations. This paper presents a study asking medical professionals about their opinion of current state-of-the-art explainable artificial intelligence methods when applied to a gastrointestinal disease detection use case. We compare two different categories of explanation methods, intrinsic and extrinsic, and gauge their opinion of the current value of these explanations. The results indicate that intrinsic explanations are preferred and that physicians see value in the explanations. Based on the feedback collected in our study, future explanations of medical deep neural networks can be tailored to the needs and expectations of doctors. Hopefully, this will contribute to solving the issue of black box medical systems and lead to successful implementation of this powerful technology in the clinic.
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.