Jung Jinsun, Lee Hyungbok, Jung Hyunggu, Kim Hyeoneui
College of Nursing, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Center for Human-Caring Nurse Leaders for the Future by Brain Korea 21 (BK 21) Four Project, College of Nursing, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Heliyon. 2023 May 8;9(5):e16110. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16110. eCollection 2023 May.
BACKGROUND: Significant advancements in the field of information technology have influenced the creation of trustworthy explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) in healthcare. Despite improved performance of XAI, XAI techniques have not yet been integrated into real-time patient care. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review is to understand the trends and gaps in research on XAI through an assessment of the essential properties of XAI and an evaluation of explanation effectiveness in the healthcare field. METHODS: A search of PubMed and Embase databases for relevant peer-reviewed articles on development of an XAI model using clinical data and evaluating explanation effectiveness published between January 1, 2011, and April 30, 2022, was conducted. All retrieved papers were screened independently by the two authors. Relevant papers were also reviewed for identification of the essential properties of XAI (e.g., stakeholders and objectives of XAI, quality of personalized explanations) and the measures of explanation effectiveness (e.g., mental model, user satisfaction, trust assessment, task performance, and correctability). RESULTS: Six out of 882 articles met the criteria for eligibility. Artificial Intelligence (AI) users were the most frequently described stakeholders. XAI served various purposes, including evaluation, justification, improvement, and learning from AI. Evaluation of the quality of personalized explanations was based on fidelity, explanatory power, interpretability, and plausibility. User satisfaction was the most frequently used measure of explanation effectiveness, followed by trust assessment, correctability, and task performance. The methods of assessing these measures also varied. CONCLUSION: XAI research should address the lack of a comprehensive and agreed-upon framework for explaining XAI and standardized approaches for evaluating the effectiveness of the explanation that XAI provides to diverse AI stakeholders.
背景:信息技术领域的重大进步影响了医疗保健领域中可信的可解释人工智能(XAI)的创建。尽管XAI的性能有所提高,但XAI技术尚未集成到实时患者护理中。 目的:本系统评价的目的是通过评估XAI的基本属性和评价医疗保健领域的解释有效性,了解XAI研究的趋势和差距。 方法:检索了PubMed和Embase数据库,查找2011年1月1日至2022年4月30日期间发表的关于使用临床数据开发XAI模型并评估解释有效性的相关同行评审文章。所有检索到的论文由两位作者独立筛选。还对相关论文进行了综述,以确定XAI的基本属性(如XAI的利益相关者和目标、个性化解释的质量)以及解释有效性的衡量标准(如心理模型、用户满意度、信任评估、任务绩效和可纠正性)。 结果:882篇文章中有6篇符合纳入标准。人工智能(AI)用户是最常被描述的利益相关者。XAI有多种用途,包括对AI的评估、辩护、改进和学习。对个性化解释质量的评估基于保真度、解释力、可解释性和合理性。用户满意度是最常用的解释有效性衡量标准,其次是信任评估、可纠正性和任务绩效。评估这些衡量标准的方法也各不相同。 结论:XAI研究应解决缺乏用于解释XAI的全面且公认的框架以及用于评估XAI向不同AI利益相关者提供的解释有效性的标准化方法的问题。
Diagnostics (Basel). 2022-1-19
Med Image Anal. 2023-2
IEEE Rev Biomed Eng. 2023
Front Psychiatry. 2023-12-7
Online J Public Health Inform. 2023-9-1
BMJ Health Care Inform. 2024-2-2
J Pers Med. 2025-8-1
AMIA Jt Summits Transl Sci Proc. 2025-6-10
Front Cardiovasc Med. 2025-4-3
J Nurs Manag. 2023-7-26
Front Artif Intell. 2024-10-17
Sensors (Basel). 2021-8-23
Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2021-11
IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2021-7
Comput Biol Med. 2021-6
IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2021-7