Refine
Document Type
- Article (5)
Language
- English (5)
Has Fulltext
- yes (5)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (5)
Keywords
- digital medicine (5) (remove)
Institute
- Medizin (5)
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.
Feature selection is a common step in data preprocessing that precedes machine learning to reduce data space and the computational cost of processing or obtaining the data. Filtering out uninformative variables is also important for knowledge discovery. By reducing the data space to only those components that are informative to the class structure, feature selection can simplify models so that they can be more easily interpreted by researchers in the field, reminiscent of explainable artificial intelligence. Knowledge discovery in complex data thus benefits from feature selection that aims to understand feature sets in the thematic context from which the data set originates. However, a single variable selected from a very small number of variables that are technically sufficient for AI training may make little immediate thematic sense, whereas the additional consideration of a variable discarded during feature selection could make scientific discovery very explicit. In this report, we propose an approach to explainable feature selection (XFS) based on a systematic reconsideration of unselected features. The difference between the respective classifications when training the algorithms with the selected features or with the unselected features provides a valid estimate of whether the relevant features in a data set have been selected and uninformative or trivial information was filtered out. It is shown that revisiting originally unselected variables in multivariate data sets allows for the detection of pathologies and errors in the feature selection that occasionally resulted in the failure to identify the most appropriate variables.
Recent advances in mathematical modelling and artificial intelligence have challenged the use of traditional regression analysis in biomedical research. This study examined artificial and cancer research data using binomial and multinomial logistic regression and compared its performance with other machine learning models such as random forests, support vector machines, Bayesian classifiers, k-nearest neighbours and repeated incremental clipping (RIPPER). The alternative models often outperformed regression in accurately classifying new cases. Logistic regression had a structural problem similar to early single-layer neural networks, which limited its ability to identify variables with high statistical significance for reliable class assignment. Therefore, regression is not always the best model for class prediction in biomedical datasets. The study emphasises the importance of validating selected models and suggests that a mixture of experts approach may be a more advanced and effective strategy for analysing biomedical datasets.
Knowledge discovery in biomedical data using supervised methods assumes that the data contain structure relevant to the class structure if a classifier can be trained to assign a case to the correct class better than by guessing. In this setting, acceptance or rejection of a scientific hypothesis may depend critically on the ability to classify cases better than randomly, without high classification performance being the primary goal. Random forests are often chosen for knowledge-discovery tasks because they are considered a powerful classifier that does not require sophisticated data transformation or hyperparameter tuning and can be regarded as a reference classifier for tabular numerical data. Here, we report a case where the failure of random forests using the default hyperparameter settings in the standard implementations of R and Python would have led to the rejection of the hypothesis that the data contained structure relevant to the class structure. After tuning the hyperparameters, classification performance increased from 56% to 65% balanced accuracy in R, and from 55% to 67% balanced accuracy in Python. More importantly, the 95% confidence intervals in the tuned versions were to the right of the value of 50% that characterizes guessing-level classification. Thus, tuning provided the desired evidence that the data structure supported the class structure of the data set. In this case, the tuning made more than a quantitative difference in the form of slightly better classification accuracy, but significantly changed the interpretation of the data set. This is especially true when classification performance is low and a small improvement increases the balanced accuracy to over 50% when guessing.
Bayesian inference is ubiquitous in science and widely used in biomedical research such as cell sorting or “omics” approaches, as well as in machine learning (ML), artificial neural networks, and “big data” applications. However, the calculation is not robust in regions of low evidence. In cases where one group has a lower mean but a higher variance than another group, new cases with larger values are implausibly assigned to the group with typically smaller values. An approach for a robust extension of Bayesian inference is proposed that proceeds in two main steps starting from the Bayesian posterior probabilities. First, cases with low evidence are labeled as “uncertain” class membership. The boundary for low probabilities of class assignment (threshold 𝜀
) is calculated using a computed ABC analysis as a data-based technique for item categorization. This leaves a number of cases with uncertain classification (p < 𝜀
). Second, cases with uncertain class membership are relabeled based on the distance to neighboring classified cases based on Voronoi cells. The approach is demonstrated on biomedical data typically analyzed with Bayesian statistics, such as flow cytometric data sets or biomarkers used in medical diagnostics, where it increased the class assignment accuracy by 1–10% depending on the data set. The proposed extension of the Bayesian inference of class membership can be used to obtain robust and plausible class assignments even for data at the extremes of the distribution and/or for which evidence is weak.