Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39063562›Full record

ArticleLife (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Generating Complex Explanations for Artificial Intelligence Models: An Application to Clinical Data on Severe Mental Illness.

Soumya Banerjee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

1 author.

Soumya BanerjeeDepartment of Computer Science and Technology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 0FD, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7748-9885

Funding

Accelerate Programme for Scientific Discovery Accelerate Programme for Scientific Discovery
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We present an explainable artificial intelligence methodology for predicting mortality in patients. We combine clinical data from an electronic patient healthcare record system with factors relevant for severe mental illness and then apply machine learning. The machine learning model is used to predict mortality in patients with severe mental illness. Our methodology uses class-contrastive reasoning. We show how machine learning scientists can use class-contrastive reasoning to generate complex explanations that explain machine model predictions and data. An example of a complex class-contrastive explanation is the following: "The patient is predicted to have a low probability of death because the patient has self-harmed before, and was at some point on medications such as first-generation and second-generation antipsychotics. There are 11 other patients with these characteristics. If the patient did not have these characteristics, the prediction would be different". This can be used to generate new hypotheses, which can be tested in follow-up studies. Diuretics seemed to be associated with a lower probability of mortality (as predicted by the machine learning model) in a group of patients with cardiovascular disease. The combination of delirium and dementia in Alzheimer's disease may also predispose some patients towards a higher probability of predicted mortality. Our technique can be employed to create intricate explanations from healthcare data and possibly other areas where explainability is important. We hope this will be a step towards explainable AI in personalized medicine.

Indexed as

class-contrastive explanationscomplex stories as explanationsexplainable AI

Identifiers

PMID39063562
PMCPMC11278495

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.