ArticleComputer methods and programs in biomedicine update2023
Interpretable machine learning text classification for clinical computed tomography reports - a case study of temporal bone fracture.
Article in Computer methods and programs in biomedicine update, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Machine learning (ML) has demonstrated success in classifying patients' diagnostic outcomes in free-text clinical notes. However, due to the machine learning model's complexity, interpreting the mechanism behind classification results remains difficult. Methods: We investigated interpretable representations of text-based machine learning classification models. We created machine learning models to classify temporal bone fractures based on 164 temporal bone computed tomography (CT) text reports. We adopted the XGBoost, Support Vector Machine, Logistic Regression, and Random Forest algorithms. To interpret models, we used two major methodologies: (1) We calculated the average word frequency score (WFS) for keywords. The word frequency score shows the frequency gap between positively and negatively classified cases. (2) We used Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (LIME) to show the word-level contribution to bone fracture classification. Results: In temporal bone fracture classification, the random forest model achieved an average F1-score of 0.93. WFS revealed a difference in keyword usage between fracture and non-fracture cases. Additionally, LIME visualized the keywords' contributions to the classification results. The evaluation of LIME-based interpretation achieved the highest interpreting accuracy of 0.97. Conclusion: The interpretable text explainer can improve physicians' understanding of machine learning predictions. By providing simple visualization, our model can increase the trust of computerized models. Our model supports more transparent computerized decision-making in clinical settings.
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.