Cited by 25Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationMachine Learning in Healthcare

Explainable decision support through the learning and visualization of preferences from a formal ontology of antibiotic treatments

Open access
Lamy, Jean-Baptiste, Sedki, Karima, Tsopra, Rosy·2020·Journal of Biomedical Informatics

Abstract

The aim of eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is to design intelligent systems that can explain their predictions or recommendations to humans. Such systems are particularly desirable for therapeutic decision support, because physicians need to understand rcommendations to have confidence in their application and to adapt them if required, e.g. in case of patient contraindication. We propose here an explainable and visual approach for decision support in antibiotic treatment, based on an ontology. There were three steps to our method. We first generated a tabular dataset from the ontology, containing features defined on various domains and n-ary features. A preference model was then learned from patient profiles, antibiotic features and expert recommendations found in clinical practice guidelines. This model made the implicit rationale of the expert explicit, including the way in which missing data was treated. We then visualized the preference model and its application to all antibiotics available on the market for a given clinical situation, using rainbow boxes, a recently developed technique for set visualization. The resulting preference model had an error rate of 3.5% on the learning data, and 5.2% on test data (10-fold validation). These findings suggest that our system can help physicians to prescribe antibiotics correctly, even for clinical situations not present in the guidelines (e.g. due to allergies or contraindications for the recommended treatment).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jbi.2020.103407

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lamy, J.-B., Sedki, K., & Tsopra, R.
Affiliations
Inserm (FR)
Corresponding author
Lamy, Jean-Baptiste
Venue
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-04
Volume
104
Pages
103407
ISSN
1532-0464 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3011778563
Cited by
25
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3
FWCI
1.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Biomedical Informatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
Funders
Agence Nationale de Sécurité du Médicament et des Produits de Santé (AAP 2016)
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 AI, antibiotic therapy, therapeutic decision support, formal ontology, preference learning, set visualization, antibiotic prescribing, patient characteristics, missing data handling
MeSH terms
Anti-Bacterial Agents, Artificial Intelligence, Humans, Learning, Decision Support Systems, Clinical

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.

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