Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2020

Open Access 01-12-2020 | Artificial Intelligence | Research article

Explainability for artificial intelligence in healthcare: a multidisciplinary perspective

Authors: Julia Amann, Alessandro Blasimme, Effy Vayena, Dietmar Frey, Vince I. Madai, the Precise4Q consortium

Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Explainability is one of the most heavily debated topics when it comes to the application of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare. Even though AI-driven systems have been shown to outperform humans in certain analytical tasks, the lack of explainability continues to spark criticism. Yet, explainability is not a purely technological issue, instead it invokes a host of medical, legal, ethical, and societal questions that require thorough exploration. This paper provides a comprehensive assessment of the role of explainability in medical AI and makes an ethical evaluation of what explainability means for the adoption of AI-driven tools into clinical practice.

Methods

Taking AI-based clinical decision support systems as a case in point, we adopted a multidisciplinary approach to analyze the relevance of explainability for medical AI from the technological, legal, medical, and patient perspectives. Drawing on the findings of this conceptual analysis, we then conducted an ethical assessment using the “Principles of Biomedical Ethics” by Beauchamp and Childress (autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice) as an analytical framework to determine the need for explainability in medical AI.

Results

Each of the domains highlights a different set of core considerations and values that are relevant for understanding the role of explainability in clinical practice. From the technological point of view, explainability has to be considered both in terms how it can be achieved and what is beneficial from a development perspective. When looking at the legal perspective we identified informed consent, certification and approval as medical devices, and liability as core touchpoints for explainability. Both the medical and patient perspectives emphasize the importance of considering the interplay between human actors and medical AI. We conclude that omitting explainability in clinical decision support systems poses a threat to core ethical values in medicine and may have detrimental consequences for individual and public health.

Conclusions

To ensure that medical AI lives up to its promises, there is a need to sensitize developers, healthcare professionals, and legislators to the challenges and limitations of opaque algorithms in medical AI and to foster multidisciplinary collaboration moving forward.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Higgins D, Madai VI. From bit to bedside: a practical framework for artificial intelligence product development in healthcare. Adv Intell Syst. 2020;2:2000052. CrossRef Higgins D, Madai VI. From bit to bedside: a practical framework for artificial intelligence product development in healthcare. Adv Intell Syst. 2020;2:2000052. CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Rudin C. Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead. Nat Mach Intell. 2019;1:206–15.CrossRef Rudin C. Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead. Nat Mach Intell. 2019;1:206–15.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Shortliffe EH, Sepúlveda MJ. Clinical decision support in the era of artificial intelligence. JAMA. 2018;320:2199–200.CrossRef Shortliffe EH, Sepúlveda MJ. Clinical decision support in the era of artificial intelligence. JAMA. 2018;320:2199–200.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Obermeyer Z, Powers B, Vogeli C, Mullainathan S. Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations. Science. 2019;366:447–53.CrossRef Obermeyer Z, Powers B, Vogeli C, Mullainathan S. Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations. Science. 2019;366:447–53.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Esteva A, Robicquet A, Ramsundar B, Kuleshov V, DePristo M, Chou K, et al. A guide to deep learning in healthcare. Nat Med. 2019;25:24–9.CrossRef Esteva A, Robicquet A, Ramsundar B, Kuleshov V, DePristo M, Chou K, et al. A guide to deep learning in healthcare. Nat Med. 2019;25:24–9.CrossRef
9.
10.
go back to reference Lapuschkin S, Wäldchen S, Binder A, Montavon G, Samek W, Müller K-R. Unmasking Clever Hans predictors and assessing what machines really learn. Nat Commun. 2019;10:1096.CrossRef Lapuschkin S, Wäldchen S, Binder A, Montavon G, Samek W, Müller K-R. Unmasking Clever Hans predictors and assessing what machines really learn. Nat Commun. 2019;10:1096.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Zech JR, Badgeley MA, Liu M, Costa AB, Titano JJ, Oermann EK. Variable generalization performance of a deep learning model to detect pneumonia in chest radiographs: a cross-sectional study. PLOS Med. 2018;15:e1002683.CrossRef Zech JR, Badgeley MA, Liu M, Costa AB, Titano JJ, Oermann EK. Variable generalization performance of a deep learning model to detect pneumonia in chest radiographs: a cross-sectional study. PLOS Med. 2018;15:e1002683.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Olsen HP, Slosser JL, Hildebrandt TT, Wiesener C. What’s in the box? The legal requirement of explainability in computationally aided decision-making in public administration. SSRN Scholarly Paper. Rochester: Social Science Research Network; 2019. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3402974. Olsen HP, Slosser JL, Hildebrandt TT, Wiesener C. What’s in the box? The legal requirement of explainability in computationally aided decision-making in public administration. SSRN Scholarly Paper. Rochester: Social Science Research Network; 2019. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2139/​ssrn.​3402974.
13.
go back to reference Schönberger D. Artificial intelligence in healthcare: a critical analysis of the legal and ethical implications. Int J Law Inf Technol. 2019;27:171–203.CrossRef Schönberger D. Artificial intelligence in healthcare: a critical analysis of the legal and ethical implications. Int J Law Inf Technol. 2019;27:171–203.CrossRef
17.
18.
go back to reference Ferretti A, Schneider M, Blasimme A. Machine learning in medicine: opening the new data protection black box. Eur Data Prot Law Rev EDPL. 2018;4:320.CrossRef Ferretti A, Schneider M, Blasimme A. Machine learning in medicine: opening the new data protection black box. Eur Data Prot Law Rev EDPL. 2018;4:320.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Weng SF, Reps J, Kai J, Garibaldi JM, Qureshi N. Can machine-learning improve cardiovascular risk prediction using routine clinical data? PLoS ONE. 2017;12:e0174944.CrossRef Weng SF, Reps J, Kai J, Garibaldi JM, Qureshi N. Can machine-learning improve cardiovascular risk prediction using routine clinical data? PLoS ONE. 2017;12:e0174944.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Kakadiaris IA, Vrigkas M, Yen AA, Kuznetsova T, Budoff M, Naghavi M. Machine learning outperforms ACC/AHA CVD risk calculator in MESA. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018;7:e009476.CrossRef Kakadiaris IA, Vrigkas M, Yen AA, Kuznetsova T, Budoff M, Naghavi M. Machine learning outperforms ACC/AHA CVD risk calculator in MESA. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018;7:e009476.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Liu T, Fan W, Wu C. A hybrid machine learning approach to cerebral stroke prediction based on imbalanced medical dataset. Artif Intell Med. 2019;101:101723–101723.CrossRef Liu T, Fan W, Wu C. A hybrid machine learning approach to cerebral stroke prediction based on imbalanced medical dataset. Artif Intell Med. 2019;101:101723–101723.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Cutillo CM, Sharma KR, Foschini L, Kundu S, Mackintosh M, Mandl KD. Machine intelligence in healthcare—perspectives on trustworthiness, explainability, usability, and transparency. NPJ Digit Med. 2020;3:1–5.CrossRef Cutillo CM, Sharma KR, Foschini L, Kundu S, Mackintosh M, Mandl KD. Machine intelligence in healthcare—perspectives on trustworthiness, explainability, usability, and transparency. NPJ Digit Med. 2020;3:1–5.CrossRef
23.
25.
go back to reference Barry MJ, Edgman-Levitan S. Shared decision making—the pinnacle patient-centered care. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:780–1.CrossRef Barry MJ, Edgman-Levitan S. Shared decision making—the pinnacle patient-centered care. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:780–1.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Kunneman M, Montori VM, Castaneda-Guarderas A, Hess EP. What is shared decision making? (and What it is not). Acad Emerg Med. 2016;23:1320–4.CrossRef Kunneman M, Montori VM, Castaneda-Guarderas A, Hess EP. What is shared decision making? (and What it is not). Acad Emerg Med. 2016;23:1320–4.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference O’Neill ES, Grande SW, Sherman A, Elwyn G, Coylewright M. Availability of patient decision aids for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: a systematic review. Am Heart J. 2017;191:1–11.CrossRef O’Neill ES, Grande SW, Sherman A, Elwyn G, Coylewright M. Availability of patient decision aids for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: a systematic review. Am Heart J. 2017;191:1–11.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Noseworthy PA, Brito JP, Kunneman M, Hargraves IG, Zeballos-Palacios C, Montori VM, et al. Shared decision-making in atrial fibrillation: navigating complex issues in partnership with the patient. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2019;56:159–63.CrossRef Noseworthy PA, Brito JP, Kunneman M, Hargraves IG, Zeballos-Palacios C, Montori VM, et al. Shared decision-making in atrial fibrillation: navigating complex issues in partnership with the patient. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2019;56:159–63.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Dobler CC, Sanchez M, Gionfriddo MR, Alvarez-Villalobos NA, Ospina NS, Spencer-Bonilla G, et al. Impact of decision aids used during clinical encounters on clinician outcomes and consultation length: a systematic review. BMJ Qual Saf. 2019;28:499–510.CrossRef Dobler CC, Sanchez M, Gionfriddo MR, Alvarez-Villalobos NA, Ospina NS, Spencer-Bonilla G, et al. Impact of decision aids used during clinical encounters on clinician outcomes and consultation length: a systematic review. BMJ Qual Saf. 2019;28:499–510.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Noseworthy PA, Kaufman ES, Chen LY, Chung MK, Elkind Mitchell SV, Joglar JA, et al. Subclinical and device-detected atrial fibrillation: pondering the knowledge gap: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2019;140:e944–63.CrossRef Noseworthy PA, Kaufman ES, Chen LY, Chung MK, Elkind Mitchell SV, Joglar JA, et al. Subclinical and device-detected atrial fibrillation: pondering the knowledge gap: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2019;140:e944–63.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Spencer-Bonilla G, Thota A, Organick P, Ponce OJ, Kunneman M, Giblon R, et al. Normalization of a conversation tool to promote shared decision making about anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation within a practical randomized trial of its effectiveness: a cross-sectional study. Trials. 2020;21:395.CrossRef Spencer-Bonilla G, Thota A, Organick P, Ponce OJ, Kunneman M, Giblon R, et al. Normalization of a conversation tool to promote shared decision making about anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation within a practical randomized trial of its effectiveness: a cross-sectional study. Trials. 2020;21:395.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Bonner C, Bell K, Jansen J, Glasziou P, Irwig L, Doust J, et al. Should heart age calculators be used alongside absolute cardiovascular disease risk assessment? BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2018;18:19.CrossRef Bonner C, Bell K, Jansen J, Glasziou P, Irwig L, Doust J, et al. Should heart age calculators be used alongside absolute cardiovascular disease risk assessment? BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2018;18:19.CrossRef
36.
go back to reference Beauchamp TL. Principles of biomedical ethics. Paperback May-2008. New York: Oxford University Press; 2008. Beauchamp TL. Principles of biomedical ethics. Paperback May-2008. New York: Oxford University Press; 2008.
37.
go back to reference Gillon R. Defending the four principles approach as a good basis for good medical practice and therefore for good medical ethics. J Med Ethics. 2015;41:111–6.CrossRef Gillon R. Defending the four principles approach as a good basis for good medical practice and therefore for good medical ethics. J Med Ethics. 2015;41:111–6.CrossRef
38.
go back to reference Mittelstadt B. Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI. Nat Mach Intell. 2019;1:501–7.CrossRef Mittelstadt B. Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI. Nat Mach Intell. 2019;1:501–7.CrossRef
39.
go back to reference Faden RR, Beauchamp TL. A history and theory of informed consent. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1986. Faden RR, Beauchamp TL. A history and theory of informed consent. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1986.
41.
go back to reference McDougall RJ. Computer knows best? The need for value-flexibility in medical AI. J Med Ethics. 2019;45:156–60.CrossRef McDougall RJ. Computer knows best? The need for value-flexibility in medical AI. J Med Ethics. 2019;45:156–60.CrossRef
44.
go back to reference London AJ. Artificial intelligence and black-box medical decisions: accuracy versus explainability. Hastings Cent Rep. 2019;49:15–21.CrossRef London AJ. Artificial intelligence and black-box medical decisions: accuracy versus explainability. Hastings Cent Rep. 2019;49:15–21.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Explainability for artificial intelligence in healthcare: a multidisciplinary perspective
Authors
Julia Amann
Alessandro Blasimme
Effy Vayena
Dietmar Frey
Vince I. Madai
the Precise4Q consortium
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6947
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-020-01332-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2020 Go to the issue