The DOI matches its Crossref record; 219 of the 219 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 3 of the 77 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Explainable, trustworthy, and ethical machine learning for healthcare: A survey
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
With the advent of machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) empowered applications for critical applications like healthcare, the questions about liability, trust, and interpretability of their outputs are raising. The black-box nature of various DL models is a roadblock to clinical utilization. Therefore, to gain the trust of clinicians and patients, we need to provide explanations about the decisions of models. With the promise of enhancing the trust and transparency of black-box models, researchers are in the phase of maturing the field of eXplainable ML (XML). In this paper, we provided a comprehensive review of explainable and interpretable ML techniques for various healthcare applications. Along with highlighting security, safety, and robustness challenges that hinder the trustworthiness of ML, we also discussed the ethical issues arising because of the use of ML/DL for healthcare. We also describe how explainable and trustworthy ML can resolve all these ethical problems. Finally, we elaborate on the limitations of existing approaches and highlight various open research problems that require further development.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This survey reviews explainable, trustworthy, and ethical machine learning for healthcare, covering XML methods, security/robustness challenges, and bioethical issues. It proposes a development-to-deployment pipeline and argues explainability is needed to build clinician/patient trust and address ethical/legal requirements.
Key findings
- The survey distinguishes explainability from interpretability, taxonomizes XML into intrinsic/post-hoc, model-specific/agnostic, surrogate, and visualization methods, and reviews healthcare applications of DT, rule-lists, RF, GAM, PDP, CAM/GradCAM, LRP, LIME, DeepLIFT, SHAP, SA, GBP, IG, AM, HSCNN, P2V, and EMANet.
- It proposes a pipeline from development to deployment: data explication, data annotation, feature extraction, black-box or inherently explainable model, XML method, validation, clinical validation, and clinical implementation.
- It identifies trustworthiness barriers including adversarial attacks, privacy breaches, distribution shifts, data imperfections, and a trade-off among accuracy, explainability, and robustness; it cites a study of 18 ImageNet classifiers showing an accuracy–robustness trade-off.
- Ethical review covers principlism (beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, justice; explicability added for AI) and concerns such as imbalanced data, data bias, privacy, informed consent, and care ethics; examples include the Google Health breast cancer study accused of transparency/reproducibility violations and racial bias in healthcare spending data.
Methods
- Design: narrative survey/review of explainable, trustworthy, and ethical ML for healthcare, with comparison tables of prior surveys and XML methods.
- Data/sample: published literature and cited healthcare ML/XML studies; no primary dataset or new empirical experiment.
- Analysis: thematic synthesis of XML techniques, security/safety/robustness issues, ethical frameworks, pitfalls, and future research directions.
Limitations
- Paper-stated limitations of existing approaches: no formal definitions, lack of standardized representation and requirements, inadequate validation metrics, lack of theoretical understanding and causality, ethical constraints, and security challenges; pitfalls include explanations vulnerable to input changes, sub-optimal explanations, dependence on data/model, unclear accountability, and need for rigorous evaluation.
- Evident: as a survey, it does not conduct a systematic search protocol, meta-analysis, or primary validation; the ethics review is explicitly selective because “Due to space availability, we will not be able to provide a comprehensive review of all the relevant publications.”
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
69 Not checked yet · 50 No basis given · 41 Own interpretation · 3 Couldn’t confirm · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“They showed that SHAP explanations to class probability did not improve the decision-making.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > B. Sub-optimal Explanations
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [171] Lee, 2012, Ethical justification for conducting public health surveillance without patient consent, Am J Public Health sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Conclusions discuss the ethical justification for public health surveillance without patient consent. Searches of our copy for SHAP explanations, class probability, and alert-processing decision-making found no passage addressing the claimed result. (LLM, conf=0.78)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To the best of our knowledge, there is no review that covers these topics in-depth while highlighting the link and applications of explainable and trustworthy methods for the medical domain.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > I. INTRODUCTION
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
In the paper
“In addition, this black-box nature of the DL is yet a major challenge in developing trustworthiness [25].”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > G. Lack of Theoretical Understanding
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [25] Gille, 2020, What we talk about when we talk about trust: Theory of trust for AI in healthcare, Intell.-Based Med.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The current field of medical XML lacks requirement guidelines about designing, measuring, and testing explanations.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > C. Lack of Standardized Requirements for XML
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [22] Wierzynski, 2018, The challenges and opportunities of explainable AI, Intel. Com
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Also, there is no measure to check which explanations should be preferred from the different explanations produced by the same method [24].”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > F. Validation of Explanations
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [24] Gilpin, 2018
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“many recent studies have highlighted the vulnerabilities of these systems towards adversarial ML attacks [30].”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > J. Security Challenges
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [30] Szegedy, 2013
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“However, due to the unavailability of sound fundamental laws and models, the explanation of DL cannot be produced up-to the required scale.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > G. Lack of Theoretical Understanding
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [8] Begoli, 2019, The need for uncertainty quantification in machine-assisted medical decision making, Nat. Mach. Intell. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“entrusting the decisions of black-box systems that are not explainable can be life-threatening [9]”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > I. INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [9] Holzinger, 2017
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Similar is the case for data leakage, which can mislead the model learning and testing [49].”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > Validation Method:
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [49] Robnik-Šikonja, 2018, Perturbation-based explanations of prediction models
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“ML and XML algorithms are designed to aid the medical staff, not for replacing the medical experts [45].”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > C. Need of XML for Healthcare
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [45] Kaufman, 2012, Leakage in data mining: Formulation, detection, and avoidance, ACM Trans. Knowl. Discov. Data source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 99
- It may state two separate claims as one. 36
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“They also stated that these factors were not revealed using traditional techniques.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > d) Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (LIME):
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [113] Palatnik de Sousa, 2019, Local interpretable model-agnostic explanations for classification of lymph node metastases, Sensors sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Sections 3.2 and 3.5 describe tissue characteristics highlighted by LIME explanations, but they do not say those characteristics were unrevealed by traditional techniques. A search for comparisons with traditional or conventional techniques found no passage establishing that claim. The citing sentence also does not identify what “these factors” refers to. (LLM, conf=0.72)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Could not verify
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“The implementation of P2V improves the predictive model working efficiency and also increase the explainability of these models.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > l) Patient2Vec (P2V):
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [122] H. Jung, Y. Oh, Towards better explanations of class activation mapping, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2021, pp. 1336–1344. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Conclusion (section 5) reports improved visual explanations and a single backward pass for LIFT-CAM, not P2V. Searches for P2V, predictive-model efficiency, and explainability found no passage in our copy addressing the claimed effects of P2V. (LLM, conf=0.76)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Could not verify
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite the increasing research on the said topic, few researchers focused on the problem of evaluating XML.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > 4) Measuring the effectiveness of explanations:
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“However, these models have black-box nature and lack underlying theoretical foundation behind their decisions [8]”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > I. INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [8] Begoli, 2019, The need for uncertainty quantification in machine-assisted medical decision making, Nat. Mach. Intell. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This human-machine combination is a powerful tool to facilitate the patients and develop high-quality treatments [21].”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > C. Need of XML for Healthcare
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [21] M.A. Ahmad, C. Eckert, A. Teredesai, Interpretable machine learning in healthcare, in: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM International Conference on Bioinformatics, Computational Biology, and Health Informatics, 2018, pp. 559–560. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The explainable techniques allow the researchers or end-users to get involved in improving the performance of the algorithm and to trust the prediction results [44].”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > C. Need of XML for Healthcare
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [44] Caruana, 2015, Intelligible models for HealthCare: Predicting pneumonia risk and hospital 30-day readmission
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These insights can help improve the prescribed medicines, facilities provided to patients in hospitals [46], and health monitoring systems [47].”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > C. Need of XML for Healthcare
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [46] Guidotti, 2018, A survey of methods for explaining black box models, ACM Comput. Surv. source
- Not checked yetcites [47] Doshi-Velez, 2017
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Due to the non-monolithic concept and subjective nature of explainability, evaluation of explanations is a complicated task.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > 4) Measuring the effectiveness of explanations:
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This approach does not require humans in the loop (layperson or domain expert).It works appropriately when human-based or application-based evaluations have already been performed.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > b) Human-based Evaluation:
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The blackbox methodology provides local explanations of a model for a prediction [41].”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > B. Taxonomy of XML
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [41] Chen, 2021, Ethical machine learning in healthcare, Annu. Rev. Biomed. Data Sci. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the difference is that it does not require a costly experimental environment and domain expert for testing.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > b) Human-based Evaluation:
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An XML technique usually explains in a human-understandable way how the feature of data relates to prediction results, i.e., what features of X-ray images a model learns to detect the fractures.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > E. Characteristics of XML for Healthcare
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is now evident that the explainability of black-box models is required to attain fair and trustworthy healthcare decisions.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > D. Enhancing the Clinical Practice of ML : A Framework of Effective XML for Healthcare
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Low translucency has the advantage of more compact explanation results.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > Characteristics of XML model for healthcare
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This technique helps in evaluating the explanation in real-time practical scenarios.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > 4) Measuring the effectiveness of explanations:
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“These properties are mostly required for explanations of any black-box model, however, we are describing these in terms of healthcare domain.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > E. Characteristics of XML for Healthcare
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [51] Işın, 2016, Review of MRI-based brain tumor image segmentation using deep learning methods, Procedia Comput. Sci. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Robnik et al. [51] listed some properties of good quality XML method.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > E. Characteristics of XML for Healthcare
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [51] Işın, 2016, Review of MRI-based brain tumor image segmentation using deep learning methods, Procedia Comput. Sci. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The model-based explanation methods are well developed and implemented for healthcare applications (further discussed in Sec IV-D).”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > Validation Method:
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [50] Rasheed, 2020, Machine learning for predicting epileptic seizures using EEG signals: A review, IEEE Rev. Biomed. Eng.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For end-users of the medical field, i.e., clinicians, radiologists, pathologists, neurologists, and patients, it is more likely that they do not have enough knowledge of understanding complex mathematical explanations.So, for them, rulebased, textual, or visualization-based explanations are required.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > Characteristics of XML model for healthcare
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One can test the explanations with laypersons, and it helps to generalize the findings as the more number of testers (laypersons) are easily available.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > b) Human-based Evaluation:
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“High translucency allows the explanation method to gather information from more internal parameters of a model.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > Characteristics of XML model for healthcare
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Thus, the explanation provides a fair analysis of model architecture and learned parameters [42].”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > C. Need of XML for Healthcare
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [42] Levin, 2021, Machine-learning-based hospital discharge predictions can support multidisciplinary rounds and decrease hospital length-of-stay, BMJ Innov. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is how an explainable model represents its explanation according to the application domain and end-users.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > Characteristics of XML model for healthcare
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It represents how much the explaining method depends on the internal architecture of the ML model, i.e., learnable parameters.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > Characteristics of XML model for healthcare
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: There is no definite method to calculate the properties of good quality XML methods.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The signal method is used to highlight the patterns of data that activate the neurons of higher layers.This can be done by back-propagating a signal from the last layer of the network to the input layer.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > F. Explaining DL Techniques
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To get a generalized model for clinical use low translucency is desirable and for a patient-specific application, the explanation should be more detailed and accurate that can lead towards high translucency.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > Characteristics of XML model for healthcare
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It illustrates the variety of ML methods for which an explanation technique can be applied.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > Characteristics of XML model for healthcare
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A good explanation should be accurate specially in case of disease prediction.Low value of accuracy is acceptable if the performance of ML model is also low.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > Characteristics of XML model for healthcare
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This local explanation allows the end-user to determine which feature is important for the precise prediction and how the perturbation in feature affects the prediction results.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > F. Explaining DL Techniques
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [64] Samek, 2021, Explaining deep neural networks and beyond: A review of methods and applications, Proc. IEEE source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These techniques are precise in terms of performance but their decisions are difficult to explain because of their complex model architecture.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > F. Explaining DL Techniques
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Saliency methods and feature attribution (FA) are the two broad categories of methods applied for explanation of DL models.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > F. Explaining DL Techniques
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fidelity is a property of explanation that shows the precision of approximating the decision of ML method.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > Characteristics of XML model for healthcare
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Explanation methods of complex deep neural networks (DNN) have high translucency thus can not be applicable for other models.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > Characteristics of XML model for healthcare
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Saliency methods produce the explanation by presenting important feature maps of each data sample.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > F. Explaining DL Techniques
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“They showed that the heatmaps produced by SA are much more noisy compared to the heatmaps generated using LRP [65].”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > F. Explaining DL Techniques
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [65] Bohlin, 2006
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Gradient-based saliency methods reveal how the output of the model changes with a small change in the input.These methods are computationally efficient because of a single pass of input (forward and backward) through the network.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > F. Explaining DL Techniques
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is crucial for a typical ML/DL empowered healthcare system to be fully trusted by both the clinicians and patients for getting the real impact of such systems.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > F. Explaining DL Techniques
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“LIME produces an explanation list that shows the contribution of individual features to the prediction.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > F. Explaining DL Techniques
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [64] Samek, 2021, Explaining deep neural networks and beyond: A review of methods and applications, Proc. IEEE source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The literature refers to two sets of popular principles that have been outlined by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) [67] and European Commission's AI High-Level Expert Group (HLEG) [68] that can be used for sustaining trust and trustworthiness in AI.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > A. Principles of Trustworthy AI for Healthcare
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [67] Holzinger, 2022, Information fusion as an integrative cross-cutting enabler to achieve robust, explainable, and trustworthy medical artificial intelligence, Inf. Fusion source
- Not checked yetcites [68] Mirsky, 2019, CT-GAN: Malicious tampering of 3D medical imagery using deep learning
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The techniques with low translucency are applicable to a wide range of ML methods.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > Characteristics of XML model for healthcare
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The feature attribution method decomposes each value produced from each neuron of the output layer according to the contributions made by the individual dimensions of an input sample.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > F. Explaining DL Techniques
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“They concluded that a high concentration of cfDNA in plasma and CNV in chromosomes affected the pathogenesis of cancer cases.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > d) Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (LIME):
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [118] Bengio, 2010, Decision trees do not generalize to new variations, Comput. Intell. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Using SHAP values they described that the intraoperative urine output, IV fluid infusion, blood product transfusion, and dynamic changes of hemodynamic features are significant causes of injury.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > d) Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (LIME):
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [113] Palatnik de Sousa, 2019, Local interpretable model-agnostic explanations for classification of lymph node metastases, Sensors source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“They analyzed the decision of CNN using LIME and described that CNN learned the patterns of peripheral lesion of DN glomeruli for DN detection.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > d) Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (LIME):
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [112] Jo, 2020, Deep learning detection of informative features in tau PET for Alzheimer’s disease classification, BMC Bioinformatics
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The adversarial robustness can be defined as the survivability of ML-based systems to adversarial attacks.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > B. Secure, Safe, and Robust ML for Healthcare
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“They concluded that the DLIME shows better results than LIME.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > d) Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (LIME):
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [116] Pianpanit, 2019
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“It is worth noting that the majority of the guidelines in both aforementioned frameworks mainly focus on the AI aspects of robustness, safety, security, explainability, and fairness and are therefore the key requirements for building trustworthy AI systems.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > A. Principles of Trustworthy AI for Healthcare
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [67] Holzinger, 2022, Information fusion as an integrative cross-cutting enabler to achieve robust, explainable, and trustworthy medical artificial intelligence, Inf. Fusion source
- Not checked yetcites [68] Mirsky, 2019, CT-GAN: Malicious tampering of 3D medical imagery using deep learning
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The safe and robust ML is a broad term and we define the robustness of the ML/DL models along three dimensions, i.e., robustness to security threats, robustness to distribution shifts, and data imperfections.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > B. Secure, Safe, and Robust ML for Healthcare
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Zafar et al. [116] pointed out the problem of instability of generated explanations due to perturbation addition and random feature selection in the medical computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) systems.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > d) Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (LIME):
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [116] Pianpanit, 2019
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“From the figure, it is evident that the trustworthy ML can only be possible by addressing challenges related to privacy, fairness, explainability, security, and robustness.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > B. Secure, Safe, and Robust ML for Healthcare
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“The literature suggests that ML systems are not safe, secure, and robust.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > B. Secure, Safe, and Robust ML for Healthcare
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [32] Qayyum, 2021, Secure and robust machine learning for healthcare: A survey, IEEE Rev. Biomed. Eng. source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This algorithm works on two axioms sensitivity and implementation variance.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > d) Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (LIME):
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To resolve the problem of toxic drugs a chemist need the structural element which is causing the problem.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > d) Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (LIME):
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“IG does not require any changes to the primordial deep neural network.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > d) Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (LIME):
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“They also compared the performance of their proposed model with CNN and concluded that the HSCNN out-performed the CNN with a high prediction score and explainable results.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > d) Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (LIME):
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [121] Guisan, 2002, Generalized linear and generalized additive models in studies of species distributions: setting the scene, Ecol. Model. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“IG can be implemented for any kind of model, i.e., image.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > d) Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (LIME):
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the drug development classification of toxic and non-toxic drugs is not enough.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > d) Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (LIME):
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If the model outcome has changed notably with perturbations, it shows us that the feature has a high contribution to the prediction.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > d) Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (LIME):
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“They showed that the network is sensitive to intensity and sphericity in coherence with domain information.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > d) Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (LIME):
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [119] Mohnen, 2020, Healthcare expenditure prediction with neighbourhood variables–A random forest model, Stat. Politics Policy source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“For example, the health insurance and portability and accountability (HIPAA) act assures the privacy of the medical data of patients.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > C. Main Ethical Questions and Challenges
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [157] Panesar, 2019
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, ML algorithms requires access to as much data as possible to improve the precision and accuracy of the outcome.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > C. Main Ethical Questions and Challenges
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Another problem is that ML-based healthcare products are manufactured by Western companies and these products are developed and tested on Caucasian data.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > C. Main Ethical Questions and Challenges
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Explanation of the data, as we proposed in the pipeline of explainable ML presented in Figure 3, in the first place is required to check for these biases.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > C. Main Ethical Questions and Challenges
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Against this background, the quality of training data has a high impact on the performance of ML algorithms.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > C. Main Ethical Questions and Challenges
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Imbalance class data is one of the common data-related problems that occur in the supervised training of ML/DL models.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > C. Main Ethical Questions and Challenges
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“This bias in the availability of facilities is also reflected in the data and can cause the biased decision of ML algorithms [155].”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > C. Main Ethical Questions and Challenges
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [155] Bohr, 2020
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is a common practice that more healthcare facilities are available for wealthy people which makes it less likely that low-income people are able to access advanced technological treatments.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > C. Main Ethical Questions and Challenges
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“it can improve care quality, cut the overall costs, reduce or even eliminate diagnostic errors and improve the process of predicting disease.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > V. ETHICAL ML FOR HEALTHCARE
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ML models learn the latent variable of data to deduce the predictions.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > C. Main Ethical Questions and Challenges
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Protecting the privacy of patients and the confidentiality of their data is one of the fundamentals of ethical healthcare.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > C. Main Ethical Questions and Challenges
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“HIPAA's policy standards are designed to improve the healthcare systems and mandate it for all healthcare organizations to protect medical information [157].”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > C. Main Ethical Questions and Challenges
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [157] Panesar, 2019
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The integration of AI/ML into healthcare practice and clinical applications promises to provide substantial improvements to the healthcare sector.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > V. ETHICAL ML FOR HEALTHCARE
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This problem arises due to the nonuniform distribution of samples among classes.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > C. Main Ethical Questions and Challenges
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Biases in outcomes of models used for healthcare services may have profound consequences.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > C. Main Ethical Questions and Challenges
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“It is to be noted here that explicability is a newly proposed principle, within the particular AI context, which has the same meaning outlined above in this paper [127].”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > V. ETHICAL ML FOR HEALTHCARE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [127] Preuer, 2019, Interpretable deep learning in drug discovery
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“To achieve the potential of”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > C. Main Ethical Questions and Challenges
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [144] Association, 2001, World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects, Bull. World Health Organ.
- Not checked yetcites [146] Berner, 2007
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The amount and type of the needed data are increasing by time to the extent of seriously blurring the boundaries between what is”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > C. Main Ethical Questions and Challenges
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The proposed architecture not only able to detect the diseases but also show transparency by highlighting the affected area detected by the system.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > l) Patient2Vec (P2V):
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [123] Zafar, 2021, Deterministic local interpretable model-agnostic explanations for stable explainability, Mach. Learn. Knowl. Extract. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In addition, bias in the data is also a major challenge to handle and that can eventually lead to algorithmic bias [178].”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > A. Explaining Medical Data
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [178] Wang, 2019, Bias also matters: Bias attribution for deep neural network explanation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To make the situation more complex, conducting proper analysis for all these data would necessitate giving access not only to one's physician but to many other experts in various areas.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > C. Main Ethical Questions and Challenges
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Various factors can put people's privacy at risk, and we highlight here two of them: a) Unprotected Data Sharing:”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > C. Main Ethical Questions and Challenges
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Moreover, it has been argued in the literature that traditional statistical performance metrics like the area under the curve may not be sufficient for evaluating the models making clinical decisions [176].”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > E. Rigorously Evaluating the Method
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [176] Anwar, 2018, Medical image analysis using convolutional neural networks: a review, J. Med. Syst. source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ML techniques build their decisions on the latent variables which are learned from the data.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > A. Explaining Medical Data
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Techniques based on Internetof-Things (IoT) are widely used in healthcare systems for real-time monitoring of critical patients.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > C. Main Ethical Questions and Challenges
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With the advanced technologies, the records and reports of patients are converted into electronic health records (EHR).”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > C. Main Ethical Questions and Challenges
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, this ability leads to data breaching through tracking and monitoring of patient's routines which dishonors the patients' privacy.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > C. Main Ethical Questions and Challenges
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Medical data is one of the most difficult data to handle due to its complex, multi-variate, and sometimes non-stationary and scarce nature.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > A. Explaining Medical Data
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The dependence of latent-variables on each other can cause misleading patterns and due to this issue, the ML-based decision-making will be misleading.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > A. Explaining Medical Data
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In addition, the inherent bias in the input (medical) data (e.g., class imbalance) can be reflected in the model's outputs i.e., model might prefer a specific class as compared to other classes and this bias might influence the explanations of the model [170].”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > A. Vulnerability to Input Changes
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [170] Klingler, 2017, Ethical issues in public health surveillance: a systematic qualitative review, BMC Public Health source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These records are available online via the cloud servers.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > C. Main Ethical Questions and Challenges
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As these explanations are dependent on the choice of reference point and a slight change in the reference point of gradient will significantly change the explanation thus causing confusion that will eventually lead to misleading results or interpretation.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > C. Dependence on Data and Model
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This blame game will eventually foster”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > D. Accountability Attribution
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [175] Weizenbaum, 1976
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, despite their significant performance these models are black-box and lack theoretical understanding behind their decisions.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > VI. POTENTIAL PITFALLS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“These biases are hard to undo and their elimination have unintended consequences on the results [179].”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > A. Explaining Medical Data
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [179] Weerts, 2019
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is well established that the explanation of the ML/DL techniques is required to gain the trust of clinicians in ML/DL empowered healthcare solutions.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > B. Representation Techniques for Explanation
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Explanation of ML/DL techniques is required to gain the trust of clinicians in ML/DL empowered healthcare solutions.
In the paper
“In this regard, a few studies suggested involving all types of stakeholders into the ML/DL method development process that may include clinicians, policymakers, data scientists, ML researchers, and hospital staff, to name a few [182], [176].”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > E. Interdisciplinary Development Workforce
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [182], [176]
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the literature, visualization-based methods are widely applied to explain the decisions of ML/DL methods.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > B. Sub-optimal Explanations
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Even if this automation of caregiving will not result in causing medical harm to the patient or job cuts in the healthcare staff, replacing human care will still have social costs, e.g., exchanging feelings and emotions among humans will cease to be part of caregiving [166].”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > C. Main Ethical Questions and Challenges
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [166] Atlam, 2019
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As we discussed in Section III, that the explanations of the DL models are model-specific in nature, therefore, it is also required to develop inherently explainable and generalize explainable methods for the DL algorithms in future.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > C. Generalized Explanations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Their black-box nature makes them susceptible to many vulnerabilities such as adversarial attacks, biased decisions, and being not able to generalize out of distribution samples, etc.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > VI. POTENTIAL PITFALLS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Over the past few years, it has been shown that ML/DL methods can be easily fooled and desired outcomes can be obtained [30], [31].”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > D. Adversarially Robust ML
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [30], [31]
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, the clinical impact of ML/DL advancements is only completely possible by overcoming challenges like adversarial ML attacks.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > D. Adversarially Robust ML
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the developed explanation methods have unique challenges and limitations associated with them, which are described below.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > VI. POTENTIAL PITFALLS
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The critical nature of healthcare applications provides significant motivation for the malicious actors to defame the ML/DL-based system and to get the desired outcomes.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > D. Adversarially Robust ML
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In the literature, a wide variety of adversarial ML attacks have been already proposed and the research on developing respective defense methods is very limited [73].”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > D. Adversarially Robust ML
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [73] Takabi, 2016, Privacy preserving multi-party machine learning with homomorphic encryption
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such an interdisciplinary development workforce will enable collaboration between the knowledge experts (i.e., clinicians and ML researchers) and healthcare service providers that will eventually improve productivity and outcomes.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > E. Interdisciplinary Development Workforce
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Obtaining an informed consent from the patient before exposing him/her to any medical intervention is one of the practical applications of these principles [135].”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > C. Main Ethical Questions and Challenges
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [135] Miles, 2005
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As mentioned above, modern bioethics have other approaches besides principlism.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > C. Main Ethical Questions and Challenges
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Because of the particular significance of addressing the data-related concerns, different countries have developed policies and laws [160].”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > C. Main Ethical Questions and Challenges
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [160] Haibe-Kains, 2020, Transparency and reproducibility in artificial intelligence, Nature source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There is no doubt that the deployment of ML for clinical practice will aid the clinicians.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > D. Accountability Attribution
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The issues that can be discussed within this approach go beyond the question of solely measuring the efficacy and safety of certain applications or calculating their possible healthrelated benefits and harms.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > C. Main Ethical Questions and Challenges
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This situation becomes even more complex when we consider all stakeholders in the loop.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > D. Accountability Attribution
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The advancements in ML/DL techniques have a great potential to revolutionize healthcare.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > E. Interdisciplinary Development Workforce
boostedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Advancements in ML/DL techniques have a great potential to revolutionize healthcare.
In the paper
“Lack of ethical guidelines and fewer or no proper training of such surveillance programs raises ethical concerns [162].”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > C. Main Ethical Questions and Challenges
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [162] West, 2020
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As outlined above, the respect for persons and autonomy are among the widely-agreed upon principles in modern bioethics.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > C. Main Ethical Questions and Challenges
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The care ethics approach, which focuses on the domain of intimate human relationships rather than the abstract application of rules [135], serves as a good example in this regard.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > C. Main Ethical Questions and Challenges
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [135] Miles, 2005
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Due to the availability of implantable devices, it is now possible to monitor the patients without their consent.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > C. Main Ethical Questions and Challenges
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, humancomputer interaction (HCI) is a well-developed technique to empower users.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > B. Representation Techniques for Explanation
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: HCI is a well-developed technique to empower users.
The paper relies on this without support.
DL models produce more accurate results than conventional ML techniques.
“These complex and dense DL models produce more accurate results than conventional ML techniques.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Simple ML is easy to explain with less accurate results and complex DL produce more accurate results with fewer explanations due to their complex non-linear structures.
“It is a well-known problem of XML that the simple ML is easy to explain with less accurate results and complex DL produce more accurate results with fewer explanations due to their complex non-linear structures.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There is no consistency in the use of terms like feature relevance, feature importance, saliency maps, and heatmaps.
“There is also the need for defining terms like feature relevance, feature importance, saliency maps, heatmaps, etc.As there is no consistency in the use of these terms.”
The paper relies on this without support.
It is not standardized whether radiologists or neurologists are interested in visualization-based explanations.
“However, it is not standardized yet whether the radiologists or neurologists are interested in these explanations or not.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The measures to validate the quality of produced explanations are not adequate.
“The measures to validate the quality of produced explanations are not adequate.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There does not exist any standard method for measuring the quality of explained healthcare decisions.
“There does not exist any standard method for measuring the quality of explained healthcare decisions.”
The paper relies on this without support.
DL is not efficient to infer causal relations between decisions and data.
“However, DL is not efficient to infer causal relations between decisions and data.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Causal links are required for taking fair decisions.
“These causal links are required for taking fair decisions.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The excellent performance of ML/DL cannot be evidence of its safety.
“As the excellent performance of a ML/DL cannot be evidence of its safety, which is simply the determination of how safe is the ML/DL empowered system for humans, i.e., patients.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The employment of ML algorithms for clinical practice or use of patients is still distant.
“However, the employment of these algorithms for clinical practice or the use of patients is still distant.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The primary reason for the gap between healthcare ML research and clinical practice is the unexplained results of algorithms and sometimes poor performance.
“The primary reason for this gap is the unexplained results of algorithms and sometimes the poor performance of the algorithm.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Any bias in data, subjectivity, redundancy, or problem in data representation causes misleading results.
“Any bias in the data, subjectivity, redundancy, or problem in data representation causes misleading results.”
The paper relies on this without support.
If ML learns from data of patients denied medical care because of no health insurance, it will generate biased results.
“Another example can be the data of patients who were denied to take medical care because of no health insurance.If ML learns from that data, it will generate biased results.”
The paper relies on this without support.
If understandable explanations are given, a doctor is far better prepared to make a decision using these explainable models.
“It is clear that if understandable explanations are given, a doctor is far better prepared to make a decision using these explainable models.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Humans typically have foreknowledge of the problem domain, which they will use to believe or deny a prediction if they understand the explanation of results by the algorithm.
“Humans typically have foreknowledge of the problem domain, which they will use to believe or deny a prediction if they understand the explanation of results by the algorithm.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There is no definite method to calculate the properties of good quality XML methods.
“The only limitation is that there is no definite method to calculate these properties.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Healthcare has unique legal, regulatory, and ethical challenges that must be considered when integrating ML/DL into clinical settings while ensuring deployed systems are robust and free from algorithmic bias.
“Moreover, unlike other domains, healthcare has unique challenges that involve legal, regulatory, and ethical challenges that need to be considered while integrating ML/DL based algorithms into actual clinical settings while ensuring that the deployed systems are robust and free from algorithmic bias.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Data imperfections in real-world data result in biased training and increase false positives and negatives.
“These data imperfections will eventually result in biased training and will increase the false positives and negatives.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The explainability of black-box models can assure reliable and ethical use in the medical field.
“The explainability of black-box models can assure reliable and ethical use in the medical field.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Class activation maps are only applicable for a specific CNN architecture that has a dense and global averaging pooling layer after the last convolutional layer.
“However, CAMs are only applicable for specific CNN architecture, i.e., CNN must have a dense and global averaging pooling layer after the last convolutional layer.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Online healthcare websites are not always concerned about the privacy of users' data.
“These websites also provide free data storing facility and are not always concerned about the privacy of the users' data.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Explanation of ML/DL techniques is required to gain the trust of clinicians in ML/DL empowered healthcare solutions.
“It is well established that the explanation of the ML/DL techniques is required to gain the trust of clinicians in ML/DL empowered healthcare solutions.”
The paper relies on this without support.
HCI is a well-developed technique to empower users.
“For example, humancomputer interaction (HCI) is a well-developed technique to empower users.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Advancements in ML/DL techniques have a great potential to revolutionize healthcare.
“The advancements in ML/DL techniques have a great potential to revolutionize healthcare.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“The application of AI in healthcare brings forth several limitations that need to be addressed for its successful integration into clinical practice [37].”
From Ethical Framework for Harnessing the Power of AI in Healthcare and Beyond (2024) · cites this paper as [37]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > d) Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (LIME):
“DeepLIFT 2020 Yang et al. [100] Uses a reference value and measures the reference values of all neurons using a forward and backward pass -Genetic variants caused by diseases Single-Nucleotide Polymorphisms”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > d) Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (LIME):
“Sharma et al. [117] implemented DeepLIFT for Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS), which focused on studying genetic variants caused by common diseases.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > D. Applications of XML Models for Trustworthy Healthcare
“these models are also implemented for predicting the depression of Alzheimer's patients [91]”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > References
“91. H. Byeon, "Developing a random forest classifier for predicting the depression and managing the health of caregivers supporting patients with alzheimer's disease,"”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > B. Key Works
“In Ethics, computing and medicine: Informatics and the transformation of health care, published in 2007 [138]”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > References
“138. K. W. Goodman, Ethics, computing, and medicine: informatics and the transformation of health care. Cambridge University Press, 1998.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > d) Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (LIME):
“TABLE IV: Summary of model-agnostic explanation methods for healthcare applications.”
§ Explainable, Trustworthy, and Ethical Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Survey > D. Applications of XML Models for Trustworthy Healthcare
“However, CAMs are only applicable for specific CNN architecture, i.e., CNN must have a dense and global averaging pooling layer after the last convolutional layer.”
Citations
Cites
Grad-CAM: Visual Explanations from Deep Networks via Gradient-Based Localization
Selvaraju, R. R., Cogswell, M., Das, A., Vedantam, R., Parikh, D., & Batra, D. (2017) · 2017 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) · doi:10.1109/iccv.2017.74 · Cited by 24,513
A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions
Lundberg, S., & Lee, S.-I. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1705.07874 · Cited by 23,707
"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier
Ribeiro, M. T., Singh, S., & Guestrin, C. (2016) · Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining · doi:10.1145/2939672.2939778 · Cited by 17,555
Visualizing and understanding convolutional networks
Zeiler, M. D., & Fergus, R. (2014) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-10590-1_53 · Cited by 15,839
A survey on deep learning in medical image analysis
Litjens, G., Kooi, T., Bejnordi, B. E., Setio, A. A. A., Ciompi, F., Ghafoorian, M., van der Laak, J. A. W. M., van Ginneken, B., & Sánchez, C. I. (2017) · Medical Image Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.media.2017.07.005 · Cited by 15,332
Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 29
Teymur, O., Zygalakis, K., & Calderhead, B. (2016) · Cited by 13,881
Learning Deep Features for Discriminative Localization
Zhou, B., Khosla, A., Lapedriza, A., Oliva, A., & Torralba, A. (2016) · 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2016.319 · Cited by 11,428
Rudin, C. (2019) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-019-0048-x · Cited by 10,561
High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence
Topol, E. J. (2019) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-018-0300-7 · Cited by 10,450
Barredo Arrieta, A., Díaz-Rodríguez, N., Del Ser, J., Bennetot, A., Tabik, S., Barbado, A., Garcia, S., Gil-Lopez, S., Molina, D., Benjamins, R., et al. (2020) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2019.12.012 · Cited by 10,423
Intriguing properties of neural networks
Szegedy, C., Zaremba, W., Sutskever, I., Bruna, J., Erhan, D., Goodfellow, I., & Fergus, R. (2013) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1312.6199 · Cited by 8,143
Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations
Obermeyer, Z., Powers, B., Vogeli, C., & Mullainathan, S. (2019) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aax2342 · Cited by 7,137
Peeking Inside the Black-Box: A Survey on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Adadi, A., & Berrada, M. (2018) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2018.2870052 · Cited by 6,294
Explanation in artificial intelligence: Insights from the social sciences
Miller, T. (2019) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.artint.2018.07.007 · Cited by 5,302
Proceedings European Conference on Computer Vision 2002
Heyden, A., Sparr, G., Nielsen, M., & Johansen, P. (2002) · Lund University Publications (Lund University) · Cited by 5,153
Principles of biomedical ethics
Horton, J. (2002) · Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene · doi:10.1016/s0035-9203(02)90265-8 · Cited by 4,408
Axiomatic attribution for deep networks
Sundararajan, M., Taly, A., & Yan, Q. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1703.01365 · Cited by 4,087
Predicting the future - big data, machine learning, and clinical medicine
Obermeyer, Z., & Emanuel, E. J. (2016) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmp1606181 · Cited by 3,652
(2001) · Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research · doi:10.1111/j.1447-0756.2001.tb01222.x · Cited by 3,515
Striving for Simplicity: The All Convolutional Net
Springenberg, J. T., Dosovitskiy, A., Brox, T., & Riedmiller, M. (2014) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1412.6806 · Cited by 3,447
Christiane, Druml, Wolzt, & Pleiner (2001) · Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Sunyatseni · Cited by 3,419
International evaluation of an AI system for breast cancer screening
McKinney, S. M., Sieniek, M., Godbole, V., Godwin, J., Antropova, N., Ashrafian, H., Back, T., Chesus, M., Corrado, G. S., Darzi, A., et al. (2020) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1799-6 · Cited by 3,287
Key challenges for delivering clinical impact with artificial intelligence
Kelly, C. J., Karthikesalingam, A., Suleyman, M., Corrado, G., & King, D. (2019) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12916-019-1426-2 · Cited by 3,136
Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learning
Doshi-Velez, F., & Kim, B. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1702.08608 · Cited by 3,121
The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)
Voigt, P., & von dem Bussche, A. (2017) · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-57959-7 · Cited by 3,001
Methods for interpreting and understanding deep neural networks
Montavon, G., Samek, W., & Müller, K.-R. (2018) · Digital Signal Processing · doi:10.1016/j.dsp.2017.10.011 · Cited by 2,665
A Survey on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Toward Medical XAI
Tjoa, E., & Guan, C. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems · doi:10.1109/tnnls.2020.3027314 · Cited by 2,524
Guisan, A., Edwards, T. C., & Hastie, T. (2002) · Ecological Modelling · doi:10.1016/s0304-3800(02)00204-1 · Cited by 2,356
The practical implementation of artificial intelligence technologies in medicine
He, J., Baxter, S. L., Xu, J., Xu, J., Zhou, X., & Zhang, K. (2019) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-018-0307-0 · Cited by 2,246
Implementing Machine Learning in Health Care — Addressing Ethical Challenges
Char, D. S., Shah, N. H., & Magnus, D. (2018) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmp1714229 · Cited by 1,857
Intelligible Models for HealthCare: Predicting Pneumonia Risk and Hospital 30-day Readmission
Caruana, R., Lou, Y., Gehrke, J., Koch, P., Sturm, M., & Elhadad, N. (2015) · Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining · doi:10.1145/2783258.2788613 · Cited by 1,685
2013 IEEE 10th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging
(2013) · doi:10.1109/isbi20048.2013 · Cited by 1,637
Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining
Macskassy, S., & USA, K. '. T. 1. A. S. I. C. O. K. D. A. D. M. 2. S. D. C. (2014) · doi:10.1145/2623330 · Cited by 1,546
Robustness May Be at Odds with AccuracyPreprint
Tsipras, D., Santurkar, S., Engstrom, L., Turner, A., & Mądry, A. (2018) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1805.12152 · Cited by 1,513
Explaining Deep Neural Networks and Beyond: A Review of Methods and Applications
Samek, W., Montavon, G., Lapuschkin, S., Anders, C. J., & Muller, K.-R. (2021) · Proceedings of the IEEE · doi:10.1109/jproc.2021.3060483 · Cited by 1,477
Deep learning for computational biology
Angermueller, C., Pärnamaa, T., Parts, L., & Stegle, O. (2016) · Molecular Systems Biology · doi:10.15252/msb.20156651 · Cited by 1,473
SmoothGrad: removing noise by adding noise
Smilkov, D., Thorat, N., Kim, B., Viégas, F., & Wattenberg, M. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1706.03825 · Cited by 1,467
Medical image analysis using convolutional neural networks: a review
Anwar, S. M., Majid, M., Qayyum, A., Awais, M., Alnowami, M., & Khan, M. K. (2018) · Journal of Medical Systems · doi:10.1007/s10916-018-1088-1 · Cited by 1,431
Self-citationExplainable AI: Interpreting, Explaining and Visualizing Deep Learning
(2019) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-28954-6 · Cited by 1,377
Explaining nonlinear classification decisions with deep taylor decomposition
Montavon, G., Lapuschkin, S., Binder, A., Samek, W., & Müller, K.-R. (2017) · Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1016/j.patcog.2016.11.008 · Cited by 1,357
Deep Learning in Medical Imaging: General Overview
Lee, J., Jun, S., Cho, Y.-W., Lee, H., Kim, G. B., Seo, J. B., & Kim, N. (2017) · Korean Journal of Radiology · doi:10.3348/kjr.2017.18.4.570 · Cited by 1,328
Sanity Checks for Saliency Maps
Adebayo, J., Gilmer, J., Muelly, M., Goodfellow, I., Hardt, M., & Kim, B. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1810.03292 · Cited by 1,294
Do no harm: a roadmap for responsible machine learning for health care
Wiens, J., Saria, S., Sendak, M., Ghassemi, M., Liu, V. X., Doshi-Velez, F., Jung, K., Heller, K., Kale, D., Saeed, M., et al. (2019) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-019-0548-6 · Cited by 1,266
Interpretable Machine Learning
Molnar, C. (2020) · Cited by 1,104
Adversarial attacks on medical machine learning
Finlayson, S. G., Bowers, J. D., Ito, J., Zittrain, J. L., Beam, A. L., & Kohane, I. S. (2019) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aaw4399 · Cited by 1,088
Samek, W., Wiegand, T., & Müller, K.-R. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1708.08296 · Cited by 1,080
(2019) · Cited by 986
(1971) · DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) · Cited by 983
A primer on deep learning in genomics
Zou, J., Huss, M., Abid, A., Mohammadi, P., Torkamani, A., & Telenti, A. (2019) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/s41588-018-0295-5 · Cited by 891
Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgment to Calculation
Agassi, J., & Wiezenbaum, J. (1976) · Technology and Culture · doi:10.2307/3103715 · Cited by 885
Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence (OECD)
Yeung, K. (2020) · International Legal Materials · doi:10.1017/ilm.2020.5 · Cited by 845
Markus, A. F., Kors, J. A., & Rijnbeek, P. R. (2021) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2020.103655 · Cited by 811
Xiao, C., Choi, E., & Sun, J. (2018) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1093/jamia/ocy068 · Cited by 792
Leakage in data mining: Formulation, detection, and avoidance
Kaufman, S., Rosset, S., Perlich, C., & Stitelman, O. (2012) · ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data · doi:10.1145/2382577.2382579 · Cited by 791
2010 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining
(2010) · doi:10.1109/icdm17440.2010 · Cited by 779
Review of MRI-based brain tumor image segmentation using deep learning methods
Işın, A., Direkoğlu, C., & Şah, M. (2016) · Procedia Computer Science · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2016.09.407 · Cited by 766
Interpretation of Neural Networks Is Fragile
Ghorbani, A., Abid, A., & Zou, J. (2019) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v33i01.33013681 · Cited by 765
Explainable Deep Learning Models in Medical Image Analysis
Singh, A., Sengupta, S., & Lakshminarayanan, V. (2020) · Journal of Imaging · doi:10.3390/jimaging6060052 · Cited by 718
Ethical Machine Learning in Healthcare
Chen, I. Y., Pierson, E., Rose, S., Joshi, S., Ferryman, K., & Ghassemi, M. (2021) · Annual Review of Biomedical Data Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-biodatasci-092820-114757 · Cited by 645
What do we need to build explainable AI systems for the medical domain?
Holzinger, A., Biemann, C., Pattichis, C. S., & Kell, D. B. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1712.09923 · Cited by 636
A Survey of Methods for Explaining Black Box Models
Guidotti, R., Monreale, A., Ruggieri, S., Turini, F., Giannotti, F., & Pedreschi, D. (2019) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3236009 · Cited by 629
Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence
Jensen, S., Boley, D. L., Gini, M. L., & Schrater, P. (2005) · Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence · Cited by 612
Tech Adoption Climbs Among Older Adults
Perrin, M. A. A. A. (2017) · Cited by 609
The need for uncertainty quantification in machine-assisted medical decision making
Begoli, E., Bhattacharya, T., & Kusnezov, D. (2019) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-018-0004-1 · Cited by 597
Interpretable Machine Learning in Healthcare
Ahmad, M. A., Eckert, C., & Teredesai, A. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 ACM International Conference on Bioinformatics, Computational Biology, and Health Informatics · doi:10.1145/3233547.3233667 · Cited by 583
(2016) · neural information processing systems · Cited by 556
Opening the black box: the promise and limitations of explainable machine learning in cardiology
Petch, J., Di, S., & Nelson, W. (2022) · Canadian Journal of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.cjca.2021.09.004 · Cited by 552
On the ethics of algorithmic decision-making in healthcare
Grote, T., & Berens, P. (2020) · Journal of Medical Ethics · doi:10.1136/medethics-2019-105586 · Cited by 551
Transparency and reproducibility in artificial intelligence
Haibe-Kains, B., Adam, G. A., Hosny, A., Khodakarami, F., Massive Analysis Quality Control (MAQC) Society Board of Directors, Shraddha, T., Kusko, R., Sansone, S.-A., Tong, W., Wolfinger, R. D., et al. (2020) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2766-y · Cited by 540
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Hossain, M. (2021) · Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.6371435 · Cited by 539
COVID-19 Patient Health Prediction Using Boosted Random Forest Algorithm
Iwendi, C., Bashir, A. K., Peshkar, A., Sujatha, R., Chatterjee, J. M., Pasupuleti, S., Mishra, R., Pillai, S. K., & Jo, O. (2020) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2020.00357 · Cited by 536
Visualizing Deep Neural Network Decisions: Prediction Difference Analysis
Zintgraf, L. M., Cohen, T. S., Adel, T., & Welling, M. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1702.04595 · Cited by 487
Towards the Science of Security and Privacy in Machine LearningPreprint
Papernot, N., McDaniel, P. D., Sinha, A., & Wellman, M. P. (2016) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1611.03814 · Cited by 486
The Oxford Handbook of Ethics of AI
(2020) · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190067397.001.0001 · Cited by 459
Prediction of the development of acute kidney injury following cardiac surgery by machine learning
Tseng, P.-Y., Chen, Y., Wang, C.-H., Chiu, K., Peng, Y.-S., Hsu, S., Chen, K.-L., Yang, C., & Lee, O. K. (2020) · Critical Care · doi:10.1186/s13054-020-03179-9 · Cited by 457
Machine Learning for Predicting Epileptic Seizures Using EEG Signals: A Review
Rasheed, K., Qayyum, A., Qadir, J., Sivathamboo, S., Kwan, P., Kuhlmann, L., O'Brien, T. J., & Razi, A. (2020) · IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1109/rbme.2020.3008792 · Cited by 438
Self-citationMedical image retrieval using deep convolutional neural network
Qayyum, A., Anwar, S. M., Awais, M., & Majid, M. (2017) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2017.05.025 · Cited by 433
Self-citationDeterministic Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations for Stable Explainability
Zafar, M. R., & Khan, N. (2021) · Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction · doi:10.3390/make3030027 · Cited by 432
Identifying Ethical Considerations for Machine Learning Healthcare Applications
Char, D. S., Abràmoff, M. D., & Feudtner, C. (2020) · The American Journal of Bioethics · doi:10.1080/15265161.2020.1819469 · Cited by 415
How Socioeconomic Status Affects Patient Perceptions of Health Care: A Qualitative Study.
Arpey, N. C., Gaglioti, A. H., & Rosenbaum, M. E. (2017) · Journal of Primary Care & Community Health · doi:10.1177/2150131917697439 · Cited by 413
Can AI Help Reduce Disparities in General Medical and Mental Health Care?
(2019) · AMA Journal of Ethics · doi:10.1001/amajethics.2019.167 · Cited by 401
Establishing the rules for building trustworthy AI
Floridi, L. (2019) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-019-0055-y · Cited by 394
CheXpert: A Large Chest Radiograph Dataset with Uncertainty Labels and Expert Comparison
Irvin, J., Rajpurkar, P., Ko, M., Yu, Y., Ciurea-Ilcus, S., Chute, C., Marklund, H., Haghgoo, B., Ball, R., Shpanskaya, K., et al. (2019) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v33i01.3301590 · Cited by 392
A Review of Challenges and Opportunities in Machine Learning for Health
Ghassemi, M., Naumann, T., Schulam, P., Beam, A. L., Chen, I. Y., & Ranganath, R. (2018) · PubMed · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1806.00388 · Cited by 368
Causality matters in medical imaging
Castro, D. C., Walker, I., & Glocker, B. (2020) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-020-17478-w · Cited by 364
Learning how to explain neural networks: PatternNet and PatternAttributionPreprint
Kindermans, P.-J., Schütt, K. T., Alber, M., Müller, K. R., Erhan, D., Kim, B., & Dähne, S. (2017) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1705.05598 · Cited by 359
Su, D., Zhang, H., Chen, H., Yi, J., Chen, P., & Gao, Y. (2018) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-01258-8_39 · Cited by 353
Collaborative Federated Learning for Healthcare: Multi-Modal COVID-19 Diagnosis at the Edge
Qayyum, A., Ahmad, K., Ahsan, M. A., Al-Fuqaha, A., & Qadir, J. (2022) · IEEE Open Journal of the Computer Society · doi:10.1109/ojcs.2022.3206407 · Cited by 345
Self-citationSecurity and Privacy Issues with Health Care Information Technology
Meingast, M., Roosta, T. G., & Sastry, S. (2006) · doi:10.1109/iembs.2006.260060 · Cited by 342
A healthcare monitoring system using random forest and internet of things (IoT)
Kaur, P., Kumar, R., & Kumar, M. (2019) · Multimedia Tools and Applications · doi:10.1007/s11042-019-7327-8 · Cited by 325
IoT Security, Privacy, Safety and Ethics
Atlam, H. F., & Wills, G. B. (2019) · Internet of things · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-18732-3_8 · Cited by 305
Trebeschi, S., van Griethuysen, J. J. M., Lambregts, D. M. J., Lahaye, M. J., Parmar, C., Bakers, F. C. H., Peters, N. H. G. M., Beets‐Tan, R. G. H., & Aerts, H. J. W. L. (2017) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-017-05728-9 · Cited by 298
Böhle, M., Eitel, F., Weygandt, M., & Ritter, K. (2019) · Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnagi.2019.00194 · Cited by 291
Patient Will See You Now: The Future of Medicine is in Your Hands
Kim, E. (2015) · Healthcare Informatics Research · doi:10.4258/hir.2015.21.4.321 · Cited by 290
Causality matters in medical imaging
Castro, D. C., Walker, I. D., & Glocker, B. (2020) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 288
Shen, S., Han, S. X., Aberle, D. R., Bui, A. A., & Hsu, W. (2019) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2019.01.048 · Cited by 268
Creative Destruction of Medicine: How the Digital Revolution Will Create Better Health Care
Kim, J. A. (2013) · Healthcare Informatics Research · doi:10.4258/hir.2013.19.3.229 · Cited by 250
Adaptive Laplace Mechanism: Differential Privacy Preservation in Deep Learning
Phan, N., Wu, X., Hu, H., & Dou, D. (2017) · Proceedings · doi:10.1109/icdm.2017.48 · Cited by 237
Unsupervised domain adaptation for medical imaging segmentation with self-ensembling
Perone, C. S., Ballester, P. L., Barros, R. C., & Cohen‐Adad, J. (2019) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.03.026 · Cited by 232
Code of Medical Ethics of the American Medical Association
Riddick, F. A. (2011) · Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · doi:10.1249/mss.0b013e318215e9ba · Cited by 229
Holzinger, A., Dehmer, M., Emmert‐Streib, F., Cucchiara, R., Augenstein, I., Ser, J. D., Samek, W., Jurišica, I., & Díaz-Rodríguez, N. (2021) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2021.10.007 · Cited by 223
An explainable artificial intelligence system for small-unit tactical behavior
van Lent, M., Fisher, W. M., & Mancuso, M. R. (2004) · Cited by 215
Islam, J., & Zhang, Y. (2017) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-70772-3_20 · Cited by 214
Adversarial Examples Are a Natural Consequence of Test Error in NoisePreprint
Ford, N., Gilmer, J., Carlini, N., & Cubuk, E. D. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1901.10513 · Cited by 197
Deep learning for healthcare decision making with EMRs
Liang, Z., Zhang, G., Huang, J. X., & Hu, Q. V. (2014) · IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM) · doi:10.1109/bibm.2014.6999219 · Cited by 187
Differential privacy-enabled federated learning for sensitive health data
Choudhury, O., Gkoulalas-Divanis, A., Salonidis, T., Sylla, I., Park, Y., Hsu, G., & Das, A. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1910.02578 · Cited by 184
The Digital Doctor: Hope, Hype, and Harm at the Dawn of Medicine’s Computer Age
Delgado, S. A. (2016) · Critical Care Nurse · doi:10.4037/ccn2016880 · Cited by 176
Zhang, J., Kowsari, K., Harrison, J. H., Lobo, J. M., & Barnes, L. E. (2018) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2018.2875677 · Cited by 173
Perturbation-Based Explanations of Prediction Models
Robnik-Šikonja, M., & Bohanec, M. (2018) · Human–Computer Interaction Series · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-90403-0_9 · Cited by 171
CT-GAN: Malicious Tampering of 3D Medical Imagery using Deep Learning
Mirsky, Y., Mahler, T., Shelef, I., & Elovici, Y. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1901.03597 · Cited by 168
Pereira, S., Meier, R., Alves, V., Reyes, M., & Silva, C. A. (2018) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-02628-8_12 · Cited by 160
What we talk about when we talk about trust: Theory of trust for AI in healthcare
Gille, F., Jobin, A., & Ienca, M. (2020) · Intelligence-Based Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.ibmed.2020.100001 · Cited by 159
The Rashomon Effect: When Ethnographers Disagree
Heider, K. G. (1988) · American Anthropologist · doi:10.1525/aa.1988.90.1.02a00050 · Cited by 158
Vices of the Mind: From the Intellectual to the Political
Cassam, Q. (2018) · Cited by 155
Local interpretable model-agnostic explanations for classification of lymph node metastases
Palatnik de Sousa, I., Maria Bernardes Rebuzzi Vellasco, M., & Costa da Silva, E. (2019) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s19132969 · Cited by 155
Robustness and Explainability of Artificial Intelligence
(2020) · Joint Research Centre (European Commission) · doi:10.2760/57493 · Cited by 155
Ethics of the health-related internet of things: a narrative review
Mittelstadt, B. (2017) · Ethics and Information Technology · doi:10.1007/s10676-017-9426-4 · Cited by 154
The Hippocratic Oath and the ethics of medicine
Miles, S. H. (2004) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.42-0982 · Cited by 148
Deep learning models for electrocardiograms are susceptible to adversarial attack
Han, X., Hu, Y., Foschini, L., Chinitz, L. A., Jankelson, L., & Ranganath, R. (2020) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-020-0791-x · Cited by 146
2013 IEEE International Conference on Healthcare Informatics
(2013) · doi:10.1109/ichi30775.2013 · Cited by 146
Clinical Interpretable Deep Learning Model for Glaucoma Diagnosis
Liao, W., Zou, B., Zhao, R., Chen, Y., He, Z., & Zhou, M. (2019) · IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics · doi:10.1109/jbhi.2019.2949075 · Cited by 144
Interpretable Deep Learning in Drug Discovery
Preuer, K., Klambauer, G., Rippmann, F., Hochreiter, S., & Unterthiner, T. (2019) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-28954-6_18 · Cited by 139
Explainable AI for Healthcare: From Black Box to Interpretable Models
Adadi, A., & Berrada, M. (2020) · Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing · doi:10.1007/978-981-15-0947-6_31 · Cited by 137
Anguita, D., Ghio, A., Greco, N., Oneto, L., & Ridella, S. (2010) · International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) · doi:10.1109/ijcnn.2010.5596450 · Cited by 134
Practical Grey-box Process Identification: Theory and Applications
Bohlin, T. (2006) · DIAL (Catholic University of Leuven) · doi:10.1007/1-84628-403-1 · Cited by 129
THE DEVELOPMENT OF MEDICAL ETHICS -A SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS
Waddington, I. (1975) · Medical History · doi:10.1017/s002572730001992x · Cited by 129
Explainable Recommendation through Attentive Multi-View Learning
Gao, J., Wang, X., Wang, Y., & Xie, X. (2019) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v33i01.33013622 · Cited by 127
The Nuremberg Doctors' Trial in Historical Context
Marrus, M. R. (1999) · Bulletin of the history of medicine · doi:10.1353/bhm.1999.0037 · Cited by 118
(2018) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 113
Towards Better Explanations of Class Activation Mapping
Jung, H., & Oh, Y. (2021) · 2021 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) · doi:10.1109/iccv48922.2021.00137 · Cited by 112
Levey, M. (1967) · Transactions of the American Philosophical Society · doi:10.2307/1006137 · Cited by 109
Ethical justification for conducting public health surveillance without patient consent
Lee, L. M., Heilig, C. M., & White, A. (2012) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.2011.300297 · Cited by 108
Deep learning detection of informative features in tau PET for Alzheimer’s disease classification
Jo, T., Nho, K. T., Risacher, S. L., Saykin, A. J., & Initiative, A. D. N. (2020) · BMC Bioinformatics · doi:10.1186/s12859-020-03848-0 · Cited by 108
Gibbons, R. D., Hooker, G., Finkelman, M. D., Weiss, D. J., Pilkonis, P. A., Frank, E., Moore, T., & Kupfer, D. J. (2013) · The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry · doi:10.4088/jcp.12m08338 · Cited by 101
Turning point: policymaking in the era of artificial intelligence
Chen, K. (2022) · International Affairs · doi:10.1093/ia/iiac074 · Cited by 91
2009 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks
(2009) · doi:10.1109/ijcnn15198.2009 · Cited by 91
Decision trees do not generalize to new variations
Bengio, Y., Delalleau, O., & Simard, C. (2010) · Computational Intelligence · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8640.2010.00366.x · Cited by 89
Suresh, A., Udendhran, R., & Balamurgan, M. (2019) · Soft Computing · doi:10.1007/s00500-019-04066-4 · Cited by 89
Parametric image reconstruction using spectral analysis of PET projection data
Meikle, S. R., Matthews, J. C., Cunningham, V. J., Bailey, D. L., Livieratos, L., Jones, T., & Price, P. (1998) · Physics in Medicine and Biology · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/43/3/016 · Cited by 88
Explaining Therapy Predictions with Layer-Wise Relevance Propagation in Neural Networks
Yang, Y., Volker Tresp, C., Wunderle, M., & Fasching, P. A. (2018) · IEEE International Conference on Healthcare Informatics (ICHI) · doi:10.1109/ichi.2018.00025 · Cited by 88
Understanding and Interpreting Machine Learning in Medical Image Computing Applications
Pereira, S., Meier, R., Alves, V., Reyes, M., & Silva, C. A. (2018) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-02628-8 · Cited by 85
Ethical issues in public health surveillance: a systematic qualitative review
Klingler, C., Silva, D. S., Schuermann, C., Reis, A. A., Saxena, A., & Strech, D. (2017) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-017-4200-4 · Cited by 84
Securing Machine Learning in the Cloud: A Systematic Review of Cloud Machine Learning Security
Qayyum, A., Ijaz, A., Usama, M., Iqbal, W., Qadir, J., Elkhatib, Y., & Al‐Fuqaha, A. (2020) · Frontiers in Big Data · doi:10.3389/fdata.2020.587139 · Cited by 84
Self-citationA Human-Grounded Evaluation Benchmark for Local Explanations of Machine LearningPreprint
Mohseni, S., Block, J. E., & Ragan, E. D. (2018) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1801.05075 · Cited by 80
Yu, D., Liu, Z., Su, C., Han, Y., Duan, X., Zhang, R., Liu, X., Yang, Y., & Xu, S. (2020) · Thoracic Cancer · doi:10.1111/1759-7714.13204 · Cited by 80
Yang, J., Zhang, M., Chen, Y., Ma, L., Yadikaer, R., Lu, Y., Lou, P., Pu, Y., Xiang, R., & Rui, B. (2020) · International Journal of Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2020.03.032 · Cited by 77
Prolegomena to a White Paper on an Ethical Framework for a Good AI Society
Cowls, J., & Floridi, L. (2018) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3198732 · Cited by 76
Machine Learning and AI for Healthcare: Big Data for Improved Health Outcomes
Panesar, A. (2021) · Apress eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4842-6537-6 · Cited by 76
Evaluation of patient safety culture using a random forest algorithm
Simsekler, M. C. E., Qazi, A. J., Alalami, M. A., Ellahham, S. H., & Ozonoff, A. (2020) · Reliability Engineering & System Safety · doi:10.1016/j.ress.2020.107186 · Cited by 70
Zafar, M. R., & Khan, N. M. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1906.10263 · Cited by 69
How Interpretable and Trustworthy are GAMs?
Chang, C.-H., Tan, S., Lengerich, B., Goldenberg, A., & Caruana, R. (2021) · Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining · doi:10.1145/3447548.3467453 · Cited by 66
Explainable machine learning practices: opening another black box for reliable medical AI
Ratti, E., & Graves, M. (2022) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-022-00141-z · Cited by 61
Opportunities in Machine Learning for Healthcare.Preprint
Ghassemi, M., Naumann, T., Schulam, P., Beam, A. L., & Ranganath, R. (2018) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 59
Secure and robust machine learning for healthcare: A survey
Qayyum, A., Qadir, J., Bilal, M., & Al-Fuqaha, A. (2021) · IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1109/rbme.2020.3013489 · Cited by 59
Self-citationDetection of epilepsy with Electroencephalogram using rule-based classifiers
Wang, G., Deng, Z., & Choi, K. (2016) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2016.09.080 · Cited by 56
The patient will see you now the future of medicine is in your hands
Topol, E. J. 1. (2015) · Cited by 56
Explaining Support Vector Machines: A Color Based Nomogram
Belle, V. V., CALSTER, B. V., Huffel, S. V., Suykens, J. A. K., & Lisboa, P. J. G. (2016) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0164568 · Cited by 54
Using decision tree classification to assist in the prediction of Alzheimer's disease
AL-Dlaeen, D., & Alashqur, A. (2014) · doi:10.1109/csit.2014.6805989 · Cited by 53
Levin, S., Barnes, S., Toerper, M. F., Debraine, A., DeAngelo, A., Hamrock, E., Hinson, J. S., Hoyer, E. H., Dungarani, T., & Howell, E. E. (2020) · BMJ Innovations · doi:10.1136/bmjinnov-2020-000420 · Cited by 53
The Ethics of AI in Biomedical Research, Patient Care and Public Health
Blasimme, A., & Vayena, E. (2019) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190067397.013.45 · Cited by 51
Zafar, M. R., & Khan, N. (2023) · doi:10.32920/22734359 · Cited by 48
The Ethics of AI in Biomedical Research, Patient Care and Public Health
Blasimme, A., & Vayena, E. (2019) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3368756 · Cited by 48
Kao, Y., & Venkatachalam, R. (2018) · Computational Economics · doi:10.1007/s10614-018-9803-z · Cited by 47
Participatory design of probability-based decision support tools for in-hospital nurses
Jeffery, A. D., Novak, L. L., Kennedy, B., Dietrich, M. S., & Mion, L. C. (2017) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1093/jamia/ocx060 · Cited by 46
Tutorial: Safe and Reliable Machine LearningPreprint
Saria, S., & Subbaswamy, A. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1904.07204 · Cited by 46
Izadyyazdanabadi, M., Belykh, E. G., Cavallo, C., Zhao, X., Gandhi, S., Moreira, L. B., Eschbacher, J. M., Nakaji, P., Preul, M. C., & Yang, Y. (2018) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-00934-2_34 · Cited by 45
A Human-Grounded Evaluation of SHAP for Alert ProcessingPreprint
Weerts, H., van Ipenburg, W., & Pechenizkiy, M. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1907.03324 · Cited by 45
The Ethical Implications of Personal Health Monitoring
Mittelstadt, B., Fairweather, B., Shaw, M., & McBride, N. (2014) · International Journal of Technoethics · doi:10.4018/ijt.2014070104 · Cited by 44
Nestor, B., McDermott, M. B. A., Chauhan, G., Naumann, T., Hughes, M. C., Goldenberg, A., & Ghassemi, M. (2018) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1811.12583 · Cited by 43
Dastoorpoor, M., Khanjani, N., Moradgholi, A., Sarizadeh, R., Cheraghi, M., & Estebsari, F. (2020) · International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health · doi:10.1007/s00420-020-01577-8 · Cited by 43
Association rule analysis in cardiovascular disease
Khare, S., & Gupta, D. (2016) · International Conference on Cognitive Computing and Information Processing · doi:10.1109/ccip.2016.7802881 · Cited by 42
Improving Information Security Behaviour in the Healthcare Context
Box, D., & Pottas, D. (2013) · Procedia Technology · doi:10.1016/j.protcy.2013.12.122 · Cited by 41
Towards Interpretability of Segmentation Networks by Analyzing DeepDreams
Couteaux, V., Nempont, O., Pizaine, G., & Isabelle Bloch, A. (2019) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-33850-3_7 · Cited by 41
Embedded Systems and Artificial Intelligence
Bhateja, V., Satapathy, S. C., & Satori, H. (2020) · Advances in intelligent systems and computing · doi:10.1007/978-981-15-0947-6 · Cited by 39
Suzuki, K., Reyes, M., Syeda-Mahmood, T. F., Ender Konukoglu, A., Glocker, B., Wiest, R., Gur, Y., Greenspan, H. K., & Madabhushi, A. (2019) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-33850-3 · Cited by 38
Caveat Emptor: The Risks of Using Big Data for Human Development
Latif, S., Qayyum, A., Usama, M., Qadir, J., Zwitter, A., & Shahzad, M. (2019) · IEEE Technology and Society Magazine · doi:10.1109/mts.2019.2930273 · Cited by 36
Self-citationDeep learning could diagnose diabetic nephropathy with renal pathological immunofluorescent images
Kitamura, S., Takahashi, K., Sang, Y., Fukushima, K., Tsuji, K., & Wada, J. (2020) · Diagnostics · doi:10.3390/diagnostics10070466 · Cited by 35
Ethics, computing and medicine: informatics and the transformation of health care.
Rose, C. (1999) · Family Practice · doi:10.1093/fampra/16.6.636-a · Cited by 34
Towards Explainable Neural-Symbolic Visual Reasoning
Bennetot, A., Laurent, J.-L., Chatila, R., & Díaz-Rodríguez, N. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1909.09065 · Cited by 32
Deep Learning in Orthopedics: How Do We Build Trust in the Machine?
Borjali, A., Chen, A. F., Muratoglu, O. K., Morid, M. A., & Varadarajan, K. M. (2020) · Healthcare Transformation · doi:10.1089/heat.2019.0006 · Cited by 32
Reply to: Transparency and reproducibility in artificial intelligence
McKinney, S. M., Karthikesalingam, A., Tse, D., Kelly, C. J., Liu, Y., Corrado, G. S., & Shetty, S. (2020) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2767-x · Cited by 32
Generalizability vs. Robustness: Adversarial Examples for Medical ImagingPreprint
Paschali, M., Conjeti, S., Navarro, F., & Navab, N. (2018) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1804.00504 · Cited by 31
International Conference on Innovative Data Communication Technologies and Application
(2023) · International Conference on Innovative Data Communication Technologies and Application (ICIDCA) · doi:10.1109/icidca56705.2023.10100178 · Cited by 31
Deep Learning Predicts Rapid Over-softening and Shelf Life in Persimmon Fruits
Suzuki, M., Masuda, K., Asakuma, H., Takeshita, K., Baba, K., Kubo, Y., Ushijima, K., Uchida, S., & Akagi, T. (2022) · The Horticulture Journal · doi:10.2503/hortj.utd-323 · Cited by 28
Eslami, T., Raiker, J. S., & Saeed, F. (2021) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-822822-7.00004-1 · Cited by 28
Bogdanov, D., Kamm, L., Laur, S., & Sokk, V. (2018) · IEEE Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1109/tcbb.2018.2858818 · Cited by 27
Vatian, A. S., Gusarova, N., Dobrenko, N., Dudorov, S., Nigmatullin, N., Shalyto, A. A., & Lobantsev, A. (2019) · Conference of Open Innovations Association (FRUCT) · doi:10.23919/fruct.2019.8711974 · Cited by 27
Ethical Issues in Our Relationship with Artificial Entities
Donath, J. S. (2020) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190067397.013.3 · Cited by 27
Bias Also Matters: Bias Attribution for Deep Neural Network Explanation
Wang, S., Zhou, T., & Bilmes, J. (2019) · International Conference on Machine Learning · Cited by 24
Byeon, H. (2019) · Technology and Health Care · doi:10.3233/thc-191738 · Cited by 24
Neural Engineering Techniques for Autism Spectrum Disorder
(2021) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/c2019-0-05414-3 · Cited by 21
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Ognjanović, I. (2020) · Studies in health technology and informatics · doi:10.3233/shti200677 · Cited by 19
Adaptive Laplace Mechanism: Differential Privacy Preservation in Deep LearningPreprint
Phan, N., Wu, X., Hu, H., et al. (2017) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1709.05750 · Cited by 18
Gupta, V., Demirer, M., Bigelow, M. T., Yu, S. M., Yu, J. S., Prevedello, L. M. S., White, R. D., & Erdal, B. S. (2020) · IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI) · doi:10.1109/isbi45749.2020.9098436 · Cited by 18
Chinese medicine prescription recommendation using generative adversarial network
Rong, C., Li, X., Sun, X., & Sun, H. (2022) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2022.3143797 · Cited by 17
Healthcare Expenditure Prediction with Neighbourhood Variables – A Random Forest Model
Mohnen, S. M., Rotteveel, A. H., Doornbos, G., & Polder, J. J. (2020) · Statistics Politics and Policy · doi:10.1515/spp-2019-0010 · Cited by 14
SPAM-DaS: Secure and Privacy-Aware Misinformation Detection as a ServicePreprint
Ali, H. M., Javed, R. T., Qayyum, A., AlGhadhban, A., Alazmi, M., Alzamil, A., Al-Utaibi, K. A., & Qadir, J. (2022) · doi:10.36227/techrxiv.19351679.v1 · Cited by 14
Self-citationPlanning for the Known Unknown: Machine Learning for Human Healthcare Systems
Chen, J. H., & Verghese, A. (2020) · The American Journal of Bioethics · doi:10.1080/15265161.2020.1822674 · Cited by 12
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Betancur, 2018, Deep learning for prediction of obstructive disease from fast myocardial perfusion SPECT: a multicenter study, JACC: Cardiovasc. Imaging, 11, 1654
- Wierzynski, 2018, The challenges and opportunities of explainable AI, Intel. Com, 12
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Privacy-preserving artificial intelligence in healthcare: Techniques and applications
Khalid, N., Qayyum, A., Bilal, M., Al-Fuqaha, A., & Qadir, J. (2023) · Computers in Biology and Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2023.106848 · Cited by 581
Self-citationMarques, L., Costa, B., Pereira, M., Silva, A., Santos, J., Saldanha, L., da Silva, I. C. B., Magalhães, P., Schmidt, S., & Vale, N. (2024) · Pharmaceutics · doi:10.3390/pharmaceutics16030332 · Cited by 444
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks in Medical Image Analysis: A Review
Mienye, I. D., Swart, T. G., Obaido, G., Jordan, M., & Ilono, P. (2025) · Information · doi:10.3390/info16030195 · Cited by 349
Quantum computing for healthcare: a review
Ur Rasool, R., Ahmad, H. F., Rafique, W., Qayyum, A., Qadir, J., & Anwar, Z. (2023) · Future Internet · doi:10.3390/fi15030094 · Cited by 242
Self-citationRahman, A., Debnath, T., Kundu, D., Khan, M. S. I., Aishi, A. A., Sazzad, S., Sayduzzaman, M., & Band, S. S. (2024) · AIMS Public Health · doi:10.3934/publichealth.2024004 · Cited by 260
Metadata
- Authors
- Rasheed, K., Qayyum, A., Ghaly, M., Al-Fuqaha, A., Razi, A., & Qadir, J.
- Affiliations
- Information Technology University (PK)
- Hamad bin Khalifa University (QA)
- Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CA)
- Qatar University (QA)
- Corresponding author
- Qadir, Junaid
- Venue
- Computers in Biology and Medicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2022-10
- Volume
- 149
- Pages
- 106043
- ISSN
- 0010-4825 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4294839477
- Cited by
- 372
- References
- 217
- Citations by year
- 2026: 77 · 2025: 134 · 2024: 104 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 11
- FWCI
- 5.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Computers in Biology and Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Qatar University QSpace (Qatar University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Qatar National Research Fund
- Qatar National Library
- Qatar Foundation
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
- Keywords
- explainable machine learning, model interpretability, health care, trustworthiness, ethical considerations, black-box models, clinical decision support, liability
- MeSH terms
- Machine Learning, Delivery of Health Care, Health Facilities, Humans, Surveys and Questionnaires
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
