Cited by 70Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

The Next Generation of Medical Decision Support: A Roadmap Toward Transparent Expert Companions

Open access
Bruckert, Sebastian, Finzel, Bettina, Schmid, Ute·2020·Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence

Abstract

Increasing quality and performance of artificial intelligence (AI) in general and machine learning (ML) in particular is followed by a wider use of these approaches in everyday life. As part of this development, ML classifiers have also gained more importance for diagnosing diseases within biomedical engineering and medical sciences. However, many of those ubiquitous high-performing ML algorithms reveal a black-box-nature, leading to opaque and incomprehensible systems that complicate human interpretations of single predictions or the whole prediction process. This puts up a serious challenge on human decision makers to develop trust, which is much needed in life-changing decision tasks. This paper is designed to answer the question how expert companion systems for decision support can be designed to be interpretable and therefore transparent and comprehensible for humans. On the other hand, an approach for interactive ML as well as human-in-the-loop-learning is demonstrated in order to integrate human expert knowledge into ML models so that humans and machines act as companions within a critical decision task. We especially address the problem of Semantic Alignment between ML classifiers and its human users as a prerequisite for semantically relevant and useful explanations as well as interactions. Our roadmap paper presents and discusses an interdisciplinary yet integrated Comprehensible Artificial Intelligence (cAI)-transition-framework with regard to the task of medical diagnosis. We explain and integrate relevant concepts and research areas to provide the reader with a hands-on-cookbook for achieving the transition from opaque black-box models to interactive, transparent, comprehensible and trustworthy systems. To make our approach tangible, we present suitable state of the art methods with regard to the medical domain and include a realization concept of our framework. The emphasis is on the concept of Mutual Explanations (ME) that we introduce as a dialogue-based, incremental process in order to provide human ML users with trust, but also with stronger participation within the learning process.

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 · 10.3389/frai.2020.507973

Cites

56 of 56 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?

  • Bruckert et al. shed light on the difficulties that are presented when rendering ML models explainable for healthcare purposes, highlighting that the implementation of such systems requires overlap between different disciplines and professions.

    “Additionally, Bruckert et al. [137] shed light on the difficulties that are presented when rendering ML models explainable for healthcare purposes, highlighting that the implementation of such systems requires overlap between different disciplines and professions.”

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: 4

  1. Biran O. Cotton C. (2017). “Explanation and justification in machine learning: a survey,” in IJCAI-17 Workshop on Explainable AI (XAI) Proceedings (Melbourne). Available online at: https://ijcai-17.org/workshop-program.html.
  2. Burri T. (2016). “Machine learning and the law: five theses,” in Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) (Short Paper) (Barcelona). Available online at: https://nips.cc/Conferences/2016
  3. Dennett D. (1987). The Intentional Stance. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
  4. Pearl J. (2009). Causality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bruckert, S., Finzel, B., & Schmid, U.
Affiliations
University of Bamberg (DE)
Corresponding author
Bruckert, Sebastian
Venue
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
Published
2020-09-24
Volume
3
Pages
507973-507973
ISSN
2624-8212 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3088652003
Cited by
66
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 9
FWCI
0.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
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
clinical decision support, model interpretability, explainable AI, black-box models, semantic alignment, human-in-the-loop learning, interactive machine learning, trust in AI, human-machine collaboration, diagnosis

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