Cited by 407Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Information Retrieval and Search Behavior

Human-Centered Tools for Coping with Imperfect Algorithms During Medical Decision-Making

Open access
Cai, Carrie J., Reif, Emily, Hegde, Narayan, Hipp, Jason, Kim, Been, Smilkov, Daniel, Wattenberg, Martin, Viegas, Fernanda +3 more·2019·Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Abstract

Machine learning (ML) is increasingly being used in image retrieval systems for medical decision making. One application of ML is to retrieve visually similar medical images from past patients (e.g. tissue from biopsies) to reference when making a medical decision with a new patient. However, no algorithm can perfectly capture an expert's ideal notion of similarity for every case: an image that is algorithmically determined to be similar may not be medically relevant to a doctor's specific diagnostic needs. In this paper, we identified the needs of pathologists when searching for similar images retrieved using a deep learning algorithm, and developed tools that empower users to cope with the search algorithm on-the-fly, communicating what types of similarity are most important at different moments in time. In two evaluations with pathologists, we found that these tools increased the diagnostic utility of images found and increased user trust in the algorithm. The tools were preferred over a traditional interface, without a loss in diagnostic accuracy. We also observed that users adopted new strategies when using refinement tools, re-purposing them to test and understand the underlying algorithm and to disambiguate ML errors from their own errors. Taken together, these findings inform future human-ML collaborative systems for expert decision-making.

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 · 10.1145/3290605.3300234

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Humans can review AI explanations to understand how AI models generate outputs and to identify whether an AI output is right or not.

    “In particular, humans can review AI explanations to understand how the AI models generate outputs [61] and identify whether an AI output is right or not [14, 42].”

    From Understanding the Effect of Counterfactual Explanations on Trust and Reliance on AI for Human-AI Collaborative Clinical Decision Making (2023) · cites this paper as [14]

    The cited paper supports the [61] portion about users gaining insight into an algorithm: ‘Developing a Mental Model of the ML’ describes pathologists testing theories about surprising results. But ‘Disambiguating ML Errors from Self Errors’ says they did so without an explicit explanation, using refinement tools rather than reviewing AI explanations. The separate claim about judging whether an output is right is attached to [14, 42], not this source. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Previous studies of deployed systems have used post-hoc surveys or interviews to gauge provider impressions.

    “In order to better understand factors impacting the adoption of CDS, previous studies of deployed systems have used post-hoc surveys or interviews to gauge provider impressions 28,44,53 ; however, provider impressions can differ from their actual use 4,18,27 .”

    From Factors driving provider adoption of the TREWS machine learning-based early warning system and its effects on sepsis treatment timing (2022) · cites this paper as [28]

    The Method section reports that pathologists completed a post-study questionnaire and semi-structured interview, and User Study Results reports their impressions of SMILY. But the Method describes a controlled study using six images, not a study of a deployed clinical system; that qualifier is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Ease of use and integration into the workflow have been noted as important factors influencing adoption.

    “Additionally, ease of use and integration into the workflow have been noted as important factors influencing adoption 26,28,47,48 .”

    From Factors driving provider adoption of the TREWS machine learning-based early warning system and its effects on sepsis treatment timing (2022) · cites this paper as [28]

    The User Study Results report that SMILY required less effort than a conventional interface and that participants were more likely to use it in clinical practice. This supports a connection between usability and prospective use, but the paper does not identify integration into clinical workflow as an adoption factor. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Explainability of a system is critical for human-AI collaborative decision-making.

    “Many researchers have discussed that the explainability [61] of a system is critical for humanAI collaborative decision-making [14, 42].”
  • Several mechanisms have been proposed to optimize the combination of human and AI decisions and facilitate appropriate reliance, including interpretable explanations, cognitive forcing functions, and feedback loops.

    “These mechanisms include providing interpretable explanations for AI advice [21, 72, 123], using cognitive forcing functions[17, 47, 99], and incorporating feedback loops to enhance the interaction between humans and AI systems [10, 11, 139].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [4]4. Saleema Amershi, James Fogarty, and Daniel Weld. 2012. Regroup: Interactive machine learning for on-demand group creation in social networks. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 21-30.
  2. [10]10. Matthew Chalmers and Ian MacColl. 2003. Seamful and seamless design in ubiquitous computing. In Workshop at the crossroads: The interaction of HCI and systems issues in UbiComp, Vol. 8.
  3. [18]18. James Fogarty, Desney Tan, Ashish Kapoor, and Simon Winder. 2008. CueFlik: interactive concept learning in image search. In Proceedings of the sigchi conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, 29-38.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cai, C. J., Reif, E., Hegde, N., Hipp, J., Kim, B., Smilkov, D., Wattenberg, M., Viegas, F., Corrado, G. S., Stumpe, M. C., & Terry, M.
Affiliations
  • Google (United States) (US)
  • Google Brain, Mountain View, CA, USA
Venue
Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2019-05-02
Pages
1-14
OpenAlex
W2918341242
Cited by
405
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 51 · 2024: 80 · 2023: 73 · 2022: 73 · 2021: 54 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 9
FWCI
37.29
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
Keywords
medical image retrieval, pathologists, human-machine collaboration, trust in machine learning, diagnostic accuracy, human-centered design

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