Cited by 86Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Machine Learning in HealthcareArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

Automatically explaining machine learning prediction results: a demonstration on type 2 diabetes risk prediction

Open access
Luo, Gang·2016·Health Information Science and Systems

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Predictive modeling is a key component of solutions to many healthcare problems. Among all predictive modeling approaches, machine learning methods often achieve the highest prediction accuracy, but suffer from a long-standing open problem precluding their widespread use in healthcare. Most machine learning models give no explanation for their prediction results, whereas interpretability is essential for a predictive model to be adopted in typical healthcare settings. METHODS: This paper presents the first complete method for automatically explaining results for any machine learning predictive model without degrading accuracy. We did a computer coding implementation of the method. Using the electronic medical record data set from the Practice Fusion diabetes classification competition containing patient records from all 50 states in the United States, we demonstrated the method on predicting type 2 diabetes diagnosis within the next year. RESULTS: For the champion machine learning model of the competition, our method explained prediction results for 87.4 % of patients who were correctly predicted by the model to have type 2 diabetes diagnosis within the next year. CONCLUSIONS: Our demonstration showed the feasibility of automatically explaining results for any machine learning predictive model without degrading accuracy.

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 · 10.1186/s13755-016-0015-4

Cites

25 of 25 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?

  • Researchers and clinicians are using artificial intelligence to integrate electronic health records and social risk factors, such as neighborhood characteristics, to predict outcomes important to individuals with diabetes, including poor control.

    “researchers and clinicians are using artificial intelligence (AI) to integrate electronic health records (EHRs) and social risk factors, such as neighborhood characteristics, to predict outcomes important to individuals with diabetes, including poor control [17-22].”

    From An Assessment of How Clinicians and Staff Members Use a Diabetes Artificial Intelligence Prediction Tool: Mixed Methods Study (2023) · cites this paper as [19]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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. [19]Liu B, Hsu W, Ma Y. Integrating classification and association rule mining. Proc KDD. 1998:80–6.
  2. [20]Li W, Han J, Pei J. CMAR: accurate and efficient classification based on multiple class-association rules. Proc ICDM. 2001: 369–76.
  3. [27]Luo G, Tang C, Yang H, Wei X. Med Search: a specialized search engine for medical information retrieval. Proc CIKM. 2008: 143–52.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Luo, G.
Affiliations
University of Utah (US)
Corresponding author
Luo, Gang
Venue
Health Information Science and Systems
Published
2016-03-08
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
2-2
ISSN
2047-2501 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2295559204
Cited by
85
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 3
FWCI
7.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Health Information Science and Systems (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
explainable machine learning, type 2 diabetes prediction, model interpretability, electronic health records, diabetes classification, clinical decision support

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