Confident Interpretation of Bayesian Decision Tree Ensembles for Clinical Applications
Abstract
Bayesian averaging (BA) over ensembles of decision models allows evaluation of the uncertainty of decisions that is of crucial importance for safety-critical applications such as medical diagnostics. The interpretability of the ensemble can also give useful information for experts responsible for making reliable decisions. For this reason, decision trees (DTs) are attractive decision models for experts. However, BA over such models makes an ensemble of DTs uninterpretable. In this paper, we present a new approach to probabilistic interpretation of Bayesian DT ensembles. This approach is based on the quantitative evaluation of uncertainty of the DTs, and allows experts to find a DT that provides a high predictive accuracy and confident outcomes. To make the BA over DTs feasible in our experiments, we use a Markov Chain Monte Carlo technique with a reversible jump extension. The results obtained from clinical data show that in terms of predictive accuracy, the proposed method outperforms the maximum a posteriori (MAP) method that has been suggested for interpretation of DT ensembles.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Only a few works take into account the nature of user expertise.
“Just a few of them take into account the nature of user expertise [29,84,87]”
From A Survey of Methods for Explaining Black Box Models (2019) · cites this paper as [87]
Schetinin et al.'s explanation method does not extend the input dataset D with random data and cannot be generalized to other black boxes but can be used only with Bayesian decision tree ensembles.
“Similarly to [14], also this explanation method f does not extend the input dataset D with random data and cannot be generalized to other black boxes but can be used only with Bayesian decision tree ensembles.”
From A Survey of Methods for Explaining Black Box Models (2019) · cites this paper as [87]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
A Survey on the Explainability of Supervised Machine Learning
Burkart, N., & Huber, M. F. (2021) · Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research · doi:10.1613/jair.1.12228 · Cited by 1,008 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
Explainable Artificial Intelligence for Tabular Data: A Survey
Sahakyan, M., Aung, Z., & Rahwan, T. (2021) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2021.3116481 · Cited by 135 · see citing works
“- [133] 2007 Quantitative evaluation of uncertainty using a Markov chain Monte Carlo technique.”
MethodNeural networks for computer-aided diagnosis in medicine: A review
lin, D., Vasilakos, A. V., Tang, Y., & Yao, Y. (2016) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2016.08.039 · Cited by 105 · see citing works
- Authors
- Schetinin, V., Fieldsend, J. E., Partridge, D., Coats, T. J., Krzanowski, W. J., Everson, R. M., Bailey, T. C., & Hernandez, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Bedfordshire (GB)
- University of Exeter (GB)
- ORCID
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine
- Published
- 2007-05
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 312-319
- ISSN
- 1089-7771 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2148001258
- Cited by
- 64
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 5.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion)
- Leicester Research Archive (University of Leicester) (submittedVersion)
- Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- University of Bedfordshire
- Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (GR/R24357/01)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
- Keywords
- Bayesian model averaging, decision tree ensembles, uncertainty quantification, interpretability, probabilistic interpretation, medical diagnostics, reversible jump Markov chain Monte Carlo, maximum a posteriori estimation, clinical decision support
- MeSH terms
- Algorithms, Artificial Intelligence, Bayes Theorem, Decision Support Techniques, Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted, Monte Carlo Method, Pattern Recognition, Automated, 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