004 Datenverarbeitung; Informatik
Refine
Year of publication
- 2021 (2) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
- data science (2) (remove)
Institute
- Medizin (2)
Because it is associated with central nervous changes, and olfactory dysfunction has been reported with increased prevalence among persons with diabetes, this study addressed the question of whether the risk of developing diabetes in the next 10 years is reflected in olfactory symptoms. In a cross-sectional study, in 164 individuals seeking medical consulting for possible diabetes, olfactory function was evaluated using a standardized clinical test assessing olfactory threshold, odor discrimination, and odor identification. Metabolomics parameters were assessed via blood concentrations. The individual diabetes risk was quantified according to the validated German version of the “FINDRISK” diabetes risk score. Machine learning algorithms trained with metabolomics patterns predicted low or high diabetes risk with a balanced accuracy of 63–75%. Similarly, olfactory subtest results predicted the olfactory dysfunction category with a balanced accuracy of 85–94%, occasionally reaching 100%. However, olfactory subtest results failed to improve the prediction of diabetes risk based on metabolomics data, and metabolomics data did not improve the prediction of the olfactory dysfunction category based on olfactory subtest results. Results of the present study suggest that olfactory function is not a useful predictor of diabetes.
The use of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in biomedical and clinical settings can disrupt the traditional doctor–patient relationship, which is based on trust and transparency in medical advice and therapeutic decisions. When the diagnosis or selection of a therapy is no longer made solely by the physician, but to a significant extent by a machine using algorithms, decisions become nontransparent. Skill learning is the most common application of machine learning algorithms in clinical decision making. These are a class of very general algorithms (artificial neural networks, classifiers, etc.), which are tuned based on examples to optimize the classification of new, unseen cases. It is pointless to ask for an explanation for a decision. A detailed understanding of the mathematical details of an AI algorithm may be possible for experts in statistics or computer science. However, when it comes to the fate of human beings, this “developer’s explanation” is not sufficient. The concept of explainable AI (XAI) as a solution to this problem is attracting increasing scientific and regulatory interest. This review focuses on the requirement that XAIs must be able to explain in detail the decisions made by the AI to the experts in the field.