Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42018992›Full record

ArticleJMIR AI2026

Integrating Confidence, Difficulty, and Language Model Calibration for Better Explainability in Clinical Documents Coding: Applications of AI.

Mihai Horia Popescu, Kevin Roitero, Vincenzo Della Mea

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR AI, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Mihai Horia Popescu *Department of Mathematics, Computer Science and Physics (DMIF), University of Udine, via Delle Scienze, 206, Udine, 33100, Italy, 39 0432 558400.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3378-0368
Kevin Roitero *Department of Mathematics, Computer Science and Physics (DMIF), University of Udine, via Delle Scienze, 206, Udine, 33100, Italy, 39 0432 558400.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9191-3280
Vincenzo Della Mea *Department of Mathematics, Computer Science and Physics (DMIF), University of Udine, via Delle Scienze, 206, Udine, 33100, Italy, 39 0432 558400.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0144-3802

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: In recent years, there has been increasing interest in developing machine and deep learning models capable of annotating clinical documents with semantically relevant labels. However, the complex nature of these models often leads to significant challenges regarding interpretability and transparency. Objective: This study aims to improve the interpretability of transformer models and evaluate the explainability of a deep learning-based annotation of coded clinical documents derived from death certificates. Specifically, the focus is on interpreting and explaining model behavior and predictions by leveraging calibrated confidence, saliency maps, and measures of instance difficulty applied to textualized representations coded using the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD). In particular, the instance difficulty approach has previously proven effective in interpreting image-based models. Methods: We used disease language bidirectional encoder representations from transformers, a domain-specific bidirectional encoder representations from transformers model pretrained on ICD classification-related data, to analyze reverse-coded representations of death certificates from the US National Center for Health Statistics, covering the years 2014 to 2017 and comprising 12,919,268 records. The model inputs consist of textualized representations of ICD-coded fields derived from death certificates, obtained by mapping codes to the corresponding ICD concept titles. For this study, we extracted a subset of 400,000 certificates for training, 100,000 for testing, and 10,000 for validation. We assessed the model's calibration and applied a temperature scaling post-hoc calibration method to improve the reliability of its confidence scores. Additionally, we introduced mechanisms to rank instances by difficulty using Variance of Gradients scores, which also facilitate the detection of out-of-distribution cases. Saliency maps were also used to enhance interpretability by highlighting which tokens in the input text most influenced the model's predictions. Results: Experimental results on a pre-fine-tuned model for predicting the underlying cause of death from reverse-coded death certificate representations, which already achieves high accuracy (0.990), show good out-of-the-box calibration with respect to expected calibration error (1.40), though less so for maximum calibration error (30.91). Temperature scaling further reduces expected calibration error (1.13) while significantly increasing maximum calibration error (42.17). We report detailed Variance of Gradients analyses at the ICD category and chapter levels, including distributions of target and input categories, and provide word-level attributions using Integrated Gradients for both correctly classified and failure cases. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that enhancing interpretability and explainability in deep learning models can improve their practical utility in clinical document annotation. By addressing reliability and transparency, the proposed approaches support more informed and trustworthy application of machine learning in mission-critical medical settings. The results also highlight the ongoing need to address data limitations and ensure robust performance, especially for rare or complex cases.

Indexed as

cause of death predictiondeep learninginstance difficultymachine learningmodel confidencepredictionsaliency mapssemantic

Identifiers

PMID42018992
PMCPMC13113207

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.