CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 645Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationMachine Learning in Healthcare

What do we need to build explainable AI systems for the medical domain?

Open access
Holzinger, Andreas, Biemann, Chris, Pattichis, Constantinos S., Kell, Douglas B.·2017·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1712.09923arXiv 1712.09923
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) generally and machine learning (ML) specifically demonstrate impressive practical success in many different application domains, e.g. in autonomous driving, speech recognition, or recommender systems. Deep learning approaches, trained on extremely large data sets or using reinforcement learning methods have even exceeded human performance in visual tasks, particularly on playing games such as Atari, or mastering the game of Go. Even in the medical domain there are remarkable results. The central problem of such models is that they are regarded as black-box models and even if we understand the underlying mathematical principles, they lack an explicit declarative knowledge representation, hence have difficulty in generating the underlying explanatory structures. This calls for systems enabling to make decisions transparent, understandable and explainable. A huge motivation for our approach are rising legal and privacy aspects. The new European General Data Protection Regulation entering into force on May 25th 2018, will make black-box approaches difficult to use in business. This does not imply a ban on automatic learning approaches or an obligation to explain everything all the time, however, there must be a possibility to make the results re-traceable on demand. In this paper we outline some of our research topics in the context of the relatively new area of explainable-AI with a focus on the application in medicine, which is a very special domain. This is due to the fact that medical professionals are working mostly with distributed heterogeneous and complex sources of data. In this paper we concentrate on three sources: images, *omics data and text. We argue that research in explainable-AI would generally help to facilitate the implementation of AI/ML in the medical domain, and specifically help to facilitate transparency and trust.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1712.09923

Cites

86 of 92 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?

  • Scarce contributions have attempted to define XAI goals from a conceptual perspective.

    “Unfortunately, scarce contributions have attempted to define such goals from a conceptual perspective [5, 13, 24, 30].”

    From Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI (2020) · cites this paper as [30]

    Section 2 (Explainability; page unavailable) discusses conceptual aims for medical XAI, including trust, transparency, and the ability to understand and retrace decisions. That supports citing this paper as a contribution on XAI goals, but our copy does not establish that such contributions are scarce. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • While a complete understanding of the inner workings remains improbable, approaching this with explainable AI may be valuable.

    “While a complete understanding of the inner workings remains improbable, approaching this with explainable AI may be valuable (Holz -inger, 2018 ; Holzinger et al., 2017).”

    From The Epistemic Cost of Opacity: How the Use of Artificial Intelligence Undermines the Knowledge of Medical Doctors in High-Stakes Contexts (2025) · cites this paper as Holzinger et al., 2017

  • There is a consensus among computer scientists that an inherent tension is between the performance and explainability of machine learning, with the best-performing algorithms being the least transparent and those that provide precise explanatory algorithms often being less accurate.

    “there is a consensus among computer scientists that an inherent tension is between the performance and explainability of machine learning, with the best-performing algorithms being the least transparent and those that provide precise explanatory algorithms often being less accurate”

    From Ethics and governance of trustworthy medical artificial intelligence (2023) · cites this paper as [46]

  • Multi-institutional collaboration is becoming the vehicle driving the creation of well-curated and semantically annotated large cohorts enhanced with research methods and results metadata, underpinning reproducible, extensible, and explainable research.

    “Toward this direction, multi-institutional collaboration is quickly becoming the vehicle driving the creation of well-curated and semantically annotated large cohorts that are further enhanced with research methods and results metadata, underpinning reproducible, extensible, and explainable research [59], [60].”

    From AI in Medical Imaging Informatics: Current Challenges and Future Directions (2020) · cites this paper as [59]

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: 37

  1. Yoshua Bengio, Aaron Courville, and Pascal Vincent. Representation learning: A review and new perspectives. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 35(8):1798-1828, 2013. doi: 10.1109/TPAMI.2013. · DOI
  2. Tim Berners-Lee, James Hendler, and Ora Lassila. The semantic Web. Scientific American, 284(5):34-43, May 2001.
  3. Mark G. Core, H. Chad Lane, Michael Van Lent, Dave Gomboc, Steve Solomon, and Milton Rosenberg. Building explainable artificial intelligence systems. In AAAI, pages 1766-1773. MIT Press, 2006.
  4. Manaal Faruqui, Jesse Dodge, Sujay Kumar Jauhar, Chris Dyer, Eduard Hovy, and Noah A. Smith. Retrofitting word vectors to semantic lexicons. In Proceedings of the 2015 Con- ference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1606-1615, Denver, Colorado, May-June 2015. Association for Computational Linguistics. URL http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/ N15-1184.
  5. Ian Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. Generative adversarial nets. In Zhoubin Ghahramani, Max Welling, Corinna Cortes, Neil D. Lawrence, and Kilian Q. Weinberger, editors, Advances in neural information processing systems (NIPS), pages 2672-2680, 2014.
  6. Geoffrey E. Hinton. A practical guide to training restricted boltzmann machines. In Neural networks: Tricks of the trade, Lecture Notes in Computer Science LNCS 7700, pages 599-619. Springer, Heidelberg, 2012. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-35289-8 32. · DOI
  7. Andreas Holzinger, Markus Plass, Katharina Holzinger, Gloria Cerasela Crisan, Camelia- M. Pintea, and Vasile Palade. Towards interactive machine learning (iML): Applying ant colony algorithms to solve the traveling salesman problem with the human-in-the-loop approach. In Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science LNCS 9817, pages 81-95. Springer, Heidelberg, Berlin, New York, 2016. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-45507-56. · DOI
  8. Berthold Huppertz and Andreas Holzinger. Biobanks a source of large biological data sets: Open problems and future challenges. In Andreas Holzinger and Igor Jurisica, editors, Interactive Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining in Biomedical Informatics, Lecture Notes in Computer Science LNCS 8401, pages 317-330. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2014. doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-43968-5 18. · DOI
  9. W. Lewis Johnson. Agents that learn to explain themselves. In Twelfth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI '94), pages 1257-1263. AAAI, 1994.
  10. Peter Kieseberg, Edgar Weippl, and Andreas Holzinger. Trust for the doctor-in-the-loop. European Research Consortium for Informatics and Mathematics (ERCIM) News: Tack- ling Big Data in the Life Sciences, 104(1):32-33, 2016.
  11. Iasonas Kokkinos, Georgios Evangelopoulos, and Petros Maragos. Texture analysis and segmentation using modulation features, generative models, and weighted curve evolution. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 31(1):142-157, 2009. doi: 10.1109/TPAMI.2008. · DOI
  12. Brenden M. Lake, Tomer D. Ullman, Joshua B. Tenenbaum, and Samuel J. Gershman. Building machines that learn and think like people. arXiv:1604.00289, 2016. · arXiv
  13. Zachary C. Lipton. The mythos of model interpretability. arXiv:1606.03490, 2016. · arXiv
  14. Andrew L. Maas, Raymond E. Daly, Peter T. Pham, Dan Huang, Andrew Y. Ng, and Christopher Potts. Learning word vectors for sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 142-150, 2011.
  15. Marc E. Maier, Brian J. Taylor, Huseyin Oktay, and David D. Jensen. Learning causal models of relational domains. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-10), pages 531-538. AAAI, 2010.
  16. Christopher D. Manning. Computational linguistics and deep learning. Computational Linguistics, 41(4):701-707, December 2015. doi: 10.1162/COLI a 00239. · DOI
  17. Tomas Mikolov, Ilya Sutskever, Kai Chen, Greg S. Corrado, and Jeff Dean. Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. In Christopher J.C. Burges, Leon Bottou, Max Welling, Zoubin Ghahramani, and Kilian Q. Weinberger, editors, Advances in neural information processing systems 26 (NIPS 2013), pages 3111- 3119. NIPS foundation, 2013b.
  18. Grégoire Montavon, Wojciech Samek, and Klaus-Robert Müller. Methods for interpreting and understanding deep neural networks. arXiv:1706.07979, 2017. · arXiv
  19. Heimo Müller, Robert Reihs, Kurt Zatloukal, Fleur Jeanquartier, Roxana Merino-Martinez, David van Enckevort, Morris A. Swertz, and Andreas Holzinger. State-of-the-art and future challenges in the integration of biobank catalogues. In Smart Health, Lecture Notes in Computer Science LNCS 8700, pages 261-273. Springer, Heidelberg, 2015. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-16226-3 11. · DOI
  20. Anh Nguyen, Jason Yosinski, and Jeff Clune. Deep neural networks are easily fooled: High confidence predictions for unrecognizable images. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 427-436. IEEE, 2015.
  21. Anh Nguyen, Alexey Dosovitskiy, Jason Yosinski, Thomas Brox, and Jeff Clune. Synthe- sizing the preferred inputs for neurons in neural networks via deep generator networks. In Daniel D. Lee, Masashi Sugiyama, Ulrike von Luxburg, Isabelle Guyon, and Roman Garnett, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 29 (NIPS 2016), pages 3387-3395. Neural Information Processing Systems Foundation, 2016.
  22. Alexander Panchenko, Eugen Ruppert, Stefano Faralli, Simone Paolo Ponzetto, and Chris Biemann. Unsupervised does not mean uninterpretable: The case for word sense induction and disambiguation. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Volume 1, Long Papers, pages 86-98, Valencia, Spain, April 2017. Association for Computational Linguistics. URL http: //www.aclweb.org/anthology/E17-1009.
  23. John Pavlopoulos, Prodromos Malakasiotis, and Ion Androutsopoulos. Deeper attention to abusive user content moderation. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1136-1146. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics, 2017.
  24. Judea Pearl. Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference (2nd Edition). Cambridge Uni- versity Press, Cambridge, 2009.
  25. Jonas Peters, Dominik Janzing, and Bernhard Schölkopf. Elements of causal inference: foundations and learning algorithms. Cambridge (MA), 2017.
  26. Rosalind W. Picard. Affective Computing. MIT Press, Cambridge (MA), 1997.
  27. Brett Poulin, Roman Eisner, Duane Szafron, Paul Lu, Russell Greiner, David S. Wishart, Alona Fyshe, Brandon Pearcy, Cam MacDonell, and John Anvik. Visual explanation of evidence with additive classifiers. In National Conference On Artificial Intelligence, pages 1822-1829. AAAI, 2006.
  28. Sarni Suhaila Rahim, Vasile Palade, Chrisina Jayne, Andreas Holzinger, and James Shut- tleworth. Detection of diabetic retinopathy and maculopathy in eye fundus images using fuzzy image processing. In Yike Guo, Karl Friston, Faisal Aldo, Sean Hill, and Hanchuan Peng, editors, Brain Informatics and Health, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, LNCS 9250, pages 379-388. Springer, Cham, Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht, London, 2015. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-23344-4 37. · DOI
  29. Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin. Why should I trust you?: Ex- plaining the predictions of any classifier. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 1135-1144. ACM, 2016b.
  30. Sascha Rothe, Sebastian Ebert, and Hinrich Schütze. Ultradense word embeddings by or- thogonal transformation. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technolo- gies, pages 767-777, San Diego, California, June 2016. Association for Computational Linguistics. URL http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/N16-1091.
  31. Stuart J. Russell and Peter Norvig. Artificial Intelligence: A modern approach. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1995.
  32. Deepika Singh, Erinc Merdivan, Ismini Psychoula, Johannes Kropf, Sten Hanke, Matthieu Geist, and Andreas Holzinger. Human activity recognition using recurrent neural net- works. In Andreas Holzinger, Peter Kieseberg, A Min Tjoa, and Edgar Weippl, ed- itors, Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction: Lecture Notes in Computer Sci- ence LNCS 10410, pages 267-274. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2017. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-66808-6 18. · DOI
  33. Jiawei Su, Danilo Vasconcellos Vargas, and Sakurai Kouichi. One pixel attack for fooling deep neural networks. arXiv:1710.08864, 2017. · arXiv
  34. Sandra Wartner, Dominic Girardi, Manuela Wiesinger-Widi, Johannes Trenkler, Raimund Kleiser, and Andreas Holzinger. Ontology-guided principal component analysis: Reaching the limits of the doctor-in-the-loop. In Information Technology in Bio-and Medical Informatics: 7th International Conference, ITBAM 2016, Porto, Portugal, September 5-8, 2016, Proceedings, pages 22-33. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2016. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-43949-5 2. · DOI
  35. Seid Muhie Yimam, Steffen Remus, Alexander Panchenko, Andreas Holzinger, and Chris Biemann. Entity-centric information access with the human-in-the-loop for the biomedical domains. In Svetla Boytcheva, Kevin Bretonnel Cohen, Guergana Savova, and Galia Angelova, editors, Biomedical NLP Workshop, 11th International Conference on Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing (RANLP 2017), pages 42-48, 2017.
  36. Feng Zhou and Fernando De la Torre. Factorized graph matching. In CVPR 2012 IEEE Conference onComputer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 127-134. IEEE, 2012.
  37. Martin Zinkevich. Online convex programming and generalized infinitesimal gradient as- cent. In 20th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML '03), pages 928-936. AAAI, 2003.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Holzinger, A., Biemann, C., Pattichis, C. S., & Kell, D. B.
Affiliations
  • Medical University of Graz (AT)
  • Universität Hamburg (DE)
  • University of Cyprus (CY)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2017
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1712.09923
arXiv
1712.09923
OpenAlex
W2778796877
Cited by
636
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 71 · 2024: 69 · 2023: 78 · 2022: 69 · 2021: 136 · 2020: 103 · 2019: 62 · 2018: 30
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
University of Cyprus
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
Keywords
explainable AI, artificial intelligence in healthcare, black-box models, transparency, trust in AI, General Data Protection Regulation, privacy, medical images, omics data, medical texts, heterogeneous data sources, knowledge representation

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