Cited by 64Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Artificial Intelligence in HealthcareBayesian Modeling and Causal Inference

Confident Interpretation of Bayesian Decision Tree Ensembles for Clinical Applications

Schetinin, Vitaly, Fieldsend, Jonathan E., Partridge, Derek, Coats, Timothy J., Krzanowski, Wojtek J., Everson, Richard M., Bailey, Trevor C., Hernandez, Adolfo·2007·IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/titb.2006.880553

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

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)
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