Sirocchi C, Suffian M, Sabbatini F, Bogliolo A, Montagna S (2024)
Publication Language: English
Publication Type: Conference contribution, Original article
Publication year: 2024
Publisher: CEUR Workshop Proceedings
Series: Explainable Artificial Intelligence for the Medical Domain 2024
City/Town: Aachen
Book Volume: 3831
Conference Proceedings Title: Proceedings of the First Workshop on Explainable Artificial Intelligence for the Medical Domain (EXPLIMED 2024) co-located with 27th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2024)
Event location: Santiago de Compostela
URI: https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3831/paper15.pdf
Open Access Link: https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3831/paper15.pdf
In clinical practice, decision-making relies heavily on established protocols, often formalised as rules.
Concurrently, machine learning (ML) models, trained on clinical data, aspire to integrate into medical
decision-making processes. However, despite the growing number of ML applications, their adoption
into clinical practice remains limited. Two critical concerns arise, relevant to the notions of consistency
and continuity of care: (a) accuracy – the ML model, albeit more accurate, might introduce errors that
would not have occurred by applying the protocol; (b) interpretability – ML models operating as black
boxes might make predictions based on relationships that contradict established clinical knowledge. In
this context, the literature suggests using integrated ML models to reduce errors introduced by purely
data-driven approaches and improve interpretability. However, there is a lack of appropriate metrics for
comparing ML models with clinical rules in addressing these challenges.
Accordingly, in this article, we first propose a metric to assess the accuracy of ML models with respect
to the established protocol. Secondly, we propose an approach to measure the distance of explanations
provided by two rule sets, with the goal of comparing the explanation similarity between clinical rulebased systems and rules extracted from ML models. The approach is validated by employing the Pima
Indians Diabetes dataset, for which a well-grounded clinical protocol is available, by training two neural
networks—one exclusively on data, and the other integrating knowledge. Our findings demonstrate that
the integrated ML model achieves comparable performance to that of a fully data-driven model while
exhibiting superior relative accuracy with respect to the clinical protocol, ensuring enhanced continuity
of care. Furthermore, we show that our integrated model provides explanations for predictions that align
more closely with the clinical protocol compared to the data-driven model.
APA:
Sirocchi, C., Suffian, M., Sabbatini, F., Bogliolo, A., & Montagna, S. (2024). Evaluating Machine Learning Models against Clinical Protocols for Enhanced Interpretability and Continuity of Care. In Gianluca Zaza, Gabriella Casalino, Giovanna Castellano (Eds.), Proceedings of the First Workshop on Explainable Artificial Intelligence for the Medical Domain (EXPLIMED 2024) co-located with 27th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2024). Santiago de Compostela, ES: Aachen: CEUR Workshop Proceedings.
MLA:
Sirocchi, Christel, et al. "Evaluating Machine Learning Models against Clinical Protocols for Enhanced Interpretability and Continuity of Care." Proceedings of the First Workshop on Explainable Artificial Intelligence for the Medical Domain (EXPLIMED 2024), Santiago de Compostela Ed. Gianluca Zaza, Gabriella Casalino, Giovanna Castellano, Aachen: CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 2024.
BibTeX: Download