Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI, 49931, USA.
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2021 Jun 3;21(1):178. doi: 10.1186/s12911-021-01542-6.
BACKGROUND: Artificial Intelligence has the potential to revolutionize healthcare, and it is increasingly being deployed to support and assist medical diagnosis. One potential application of AI is as the first point of contact for patients, replacing initial diagnoses prior to sending a patient to a specialist, allowing health care professionals to focus on more challenging and critical aspects of treatment. But for AI systems to succeed in this role, it will not be enough for them to merely provide accurate diagnoses and predictions. In addition, it will need to provide explanations (both to physicians and patients) about why the diagnoses are made. Without this, accurate and correct diagnoses and treatments might otherwise be ignored or rejected. METHOD: It is important to evaluate the effectiveness of these explanations and understand the relative effectiveness of different kinds of explanations. In this paper, we examine this problem across two simulation experiments. For the first experiment, we tested a re-diagnosis scenario to understand the effect of local and global explanations. In a second simulation experiment, we implemented different forms of explanation in a similar diagnosis scenario. RESULTS: Results show that explanation helps improve satisfaction measures during the critical re-diagnosis period but had little effect before re-diagnosis (when initial treatment was taking place) or after (when an alternate diagnosis resolved the case successfully). Furthermore, initial "global" explanations about the process had no impact on immediate satisfaction but improved later judgments of understanding about the AI. Results of the second experiment show that visual and example-based explanations integrated with rationales had a significantly better impact on patient satisfaction and trust than no explanations, or with text-based rationales alone. As in Experiment 1, these explanations had their effect primarily on immediate measures of satisfaction during the re-diagnosis crisis, with little advantage prior to re-diagnosis or once the diagnosis was successfully resolved. CONCLUSION: These two studies help us to draw several conclusions about how patient-facing explanatory diagnostic systems may succeed or fail. Based on these studies and the review of the literature, we will provide some design recommendations for the explanations offered for AI systems in the healthcare domain.
背景:人工智能有可能彻底改变医疗保健行业,它越来越多地被用于支持和辅助医疗诊断。人工智能的一个潜在应用是作为患者的第一个联系人,在将患者转介给专家之前,替代初始诊断,从而使医疗保健专业人员能够专注于治疗更具挑战性和关键性的方面。但是,为了使 AI 系统在这一角色中取得成功,仅仅提供准确的诊断和预测是不够的。此外,它还需要为医生和患者解释为什么做出这些诊断。如果没有这些解释,准确和正确的诊断和治疗可能会被忽视或拒绝。
方法:评估这些解释的有效性并了解不同类型的解释的相对有效性非常重要。在本文中,我们通过两个模拟实验来研究这个问题。对于第一个实验,我们测试了重新诊断场景,以了解局部和全局解释的效果。在第二个模拟实验中,我们在类似的诊断场景中实现了不同形式的解释。
结果:结果表明,解释有助于在关键的重新诊断期间提高满意度指标,但在重新诊断之前(初始治疗正在进行时)或之后(当替代诊断成功解决病例时)几乎没有影响。此外,关于该过程的初始“全局”解释对即时满意度没有影响,但提高了对 AI 的理解的后期判断。第二个实验的结果表明,与没有解释或仅使用基于文本的推理相比,视觉和基于示例的解释与推理相结合对患者满意度和信任度有显著的积极影响。与实验 1 一样,这些解释主要在重新诊断危机期间对即时满意度产生影响,在重新诊断之前或诊断成功解决后几乎没有优势。
结论:这两项研究帮助我们得出了关于面向患者的解释性诊断系统可能成功或失败的几个结论。基于这些研究和文献综述,我们将为医疗保健领域的 AI 系统提供一些解释设计建议。
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2021-6-3
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022-2-1
Prog Brain Res. 2020
Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2022-3
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2022-2-11
Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2023-7
J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2021-1
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2020-11-30
Healthcare (Basel). 2020-6-3
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2020-4-1
Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2020-4