Cited by 5Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

XAI for medicine by ChatGPT code interpreter

Open access
Kitamura, Kenta, Irvan, Mhd, Shigetomi Yamaguchi, Rie·2023·Proceedings of the 2023 5th International Conference on Big-data Service and Intelligent Computation

Abstract

In recent years, with the prevalence of Artificial Intelligence (AI), the interpretability of AI outputs has become a significant issue. Especially the interpretability of large language models (LLMs), including ChatGPT, has emerged as a major challenge. Consequently, there is a growing interest in the research of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI), which seeks to elucidate the decision-making processes of AI in a manner that humans can comprehend. In the medical field, where trust and transparency are important, the use of AI becomes challenging when its decisions are unclear. Therefore, XAI techniques become critically important in the medical field. In this study, we propose the prompt named Code Base Prompt (CBP) to make the ChatGPT's decision-making process on medical texts explainable by using the Python code execution function of Chat GPT Code interpreter. In CBP, the medical decision-making algorithm is rewritten as Python code. Moreover, we propose an explainability evaluation system named Medical Algorithm Presentation Criteria (MAPC) for medical algorithm application tasks to medical text. MAPC is evaluated by five factors to align the human understanding process. To compare CBP with a Text Base Prompt (TBP), we conducted an experiment applying the heart failure classification algorithm to heart failure case report texts in three medical articles. With CBP, the results showed that the ChatGPT Code interpreter executed the Python code in all three cases and met all the five MAPC factors. In contrast, with TBP, no Python code execution was observed in any of the three cases, validating only one factor of MAPC. This study presents a new method for implementing XAI in the use of ChatGPT for medical tasks.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3633624.3633629

Cites

7 of 7 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?

  • Custom and task-specific metrics emerged frequently in the reviewed studies.

    “Custom and task-specific metrics emerged frequently, including Hallucination Quantification [111], Medical Algorithm Presentation Criteria(MAPC) [89], Diagnosis Confidence Scoring(DCS) [71], LExT scores combining plausibility and faithfulness [80], Reasoning Path Quality Assessment(RPQA) rated by physicians [87], and LLMw-Ref for reasoning trajectory evaluation [82].”
  • In the review, twenty studies relied exclusively on closed-source models.

    “In our review, twenty studies relied exclusively on closed-source models [62,63,79,89,105,118]”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kitamura, K., Irvan, M., & Shigetomi Yamaguchi, R.
Affiliations
  • The University of Tokyo (JP)
  • The University of Tokyo, Japan
Venue
Proceedings of the 2023 5th International Conference on Big-data Service and Intelligent Computation
Publisher
ACM
Published
2023-10-20
Pages
28-34
OpenAlex
W4391331103
Cited by
5
References
7
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 1
FWCI
0.89
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
International Conference on Big-data Service and Intelligent Computation (BDSIC) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
explainable AI, ChatGPT, large language models, prompt engineering, explainability evaluation, heart failure classification

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