اشترك بالحزمة الذهبية واحصل على وصول غير محدود شمرا أكاديميا
تسجيل مستخدم جديدUnremarkable AI: Fitting Intelligent Decision Support into Critical, Clinical Decision-Making Processes
96
0
0.0
(
0
)
اسأل ChatGPT حول البحث
ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
Clinical decision support tools (DST) promise improved healthcare outcomes by offering data-driven insights. While effective in lab settings, almost all DSTs have failed in practice. Empirical research diagnosed poor contextual fit as the cause. This paper describes the design and field evaluation of a radically new form of DST. It automatically generates slides for clinicians decision meetings with subtly embedded machine prognostics. This design took inspiration from the notion of Unremarkable Computing, that by augmenting the users routines technology/AI can have significant importance for the users yet remain unobtrusive. Our field evaluation suggests clinicians are more likely to encounter and embrace such a DST. Drawing on their responses, we discuss the importance and intricacies of finding the right level of unremarkableness in DST design, and share lessons learned in prototyping critical AI systems as a situated experience.
قيم البحث
اقرأ أيضاً
The pervasive application of algorithmic decision-making is raising concerns on the risk of unintended bias in AI systems deployed in critical settings such as healthcare. The detection and mitigation of biased models is a very delicate task which sh
ould be tackled with care and involving domain experts in the loop. In this paper we introduce FairLens, a methodology for discovering and explaining biases. We show how our tool can be used to audit a fictional commercial black-box model acting as a clinical decision support system. In this scenario, the healthcare facility experts can use FairLens on their own historical data to discover the models biases before incorporating it into the clinical decision flow. FairLens first stratifies the available patient data according to attributes such as age, ethnicity, gender and insurance; it then assesses the model performance on such subgroups of patients identifying those in need of expert evaluation. Finally, building on recent state-of-the-art XAI (eXplainable Artificial Intelligence) techniques, FairLens explains which elements in patients clinical history drive the model error in the selected subgroup. Therefore, FairLens allows experts to investigate whether to trust the model and to spotlight group-specific biases that might constitute potential fairness issues.
People supported by AI-powered decision support tools frequently overrely on the AI: they accept an AIs suggestion even when that suggestion is wrong. Adding explanations to the AI decisions does not appear to reduce the overreliance and some studies
suggest that it might even increase it. Informed by the dual-process theory of cognition, we posit that people rarely engage analytically with each individual AI recommendation and explanation, and instead develop general heuristics about whether and when to follow the AI suggestions. Building on prior research on medical decision-making, we designed three cognitive forcing interventions to compel people to engage more thoughtfully with the AI-generated explanations. We conducted an experiment (N=199), in which we compared our three cognitive forcing designs to two simple explainable AI approaches and to a no-AI baseline. The results demonstrate that cognitive forcing significantly reduced overreliance compared to the simple explainable AI approaches. However, there was a trade-off: people assigned the least favorable subjective ratings to the designs that reduced the overreliance the most. To audit our work for intervention-generated inequalities, we investigated whether our interventions benefited equally people with different levels of Need for Cognition (i.e., motivation to engage in effortful mental activities). Our results show that, on average, cognitive forcing interventions benefited participants higher in Need for Cognition more. Our research suggests that human cognitive motivation moderates the effectiveness of explainable AI solutions.
In clinical care, obtaining a correct diagnosis is the first step towards successful treatment and, ultimately, recovery. Depending on the complexity of the case, the diagnostic phase can be lengthy and ridden with errors and delays. Such errors have
a high likelihood to cause patients severe harm or even lead to their death and are estimated to cost the U.S. healthcare system several hundred billion dollars each year. To avoid diagnostic errors, physicians increasingly rely on diagnostic decision support systems drawing from heuristics, historic cases, textbooks, clinical guidelines and scholarly biomedical literature. The evaluation of such systems, however, is often conducted in an ad-hoc fashion, using non-transparent methodology, and proprietary data. This paper presents DC3, a collection of 31 extremely difficult diagnostic case challenges, manually compiled and solved by clinical experts. For each case, we present a number of temporally ordered physician-generated observations alongside the eventually confirmed true diagnosis. We additionally provide inferred dense relevance judgments for these cases among the PubMed collection of 27 million scholarly biomedical articles.
Owe to the recent advancements in Artificial Intelligence especially deep learning, many data-driven decision support systems have been implemented to facilitate medical doctors in delivering personalized care. We focus on the deep reinforcement lear
ning (DRL) models in this paper. DRL models have demonstrated human-level or even superior performance in the tasks of computer vision and game playings, such as Go and Atari game. However, the adoption of deep reinforcement learning techniques in clinical decision optimization is still rare. We present the first survey that summarizes reinforcement learning algorithms with Deep Neural Networks (DNN) on clinical decision support. We also discuss some case studies, where different DRL algorithms were applied to address various clinical challenges. We further compare and contrast the advantages and limitations of various DRL algorithms and present a preliminary guide on how to choose the appropriate DRL algorithm for particular clinical applications.
Across a growing number of domains, human experts are expected to learn from and adapt to AI with superior decision making abilities. But how can we quantify such human adaptation to AI? We develop a simple measure of human adaptation to AI and test
its usefulness in two case studies. In Study 1, we analyze 1.3 million move decisions made by professional Go players and find that a positive form of adaptation to AI (learning) occurred after the players could observe the reasoning processes of AI, rather than mere actions of AI. These findings based on our measure highlight the importance of explainability for human learning from AI. In Study 2, we test whether our measure is sufficiently sensitive to capture a negative form of adaptation to AI (cheating aided by AI), which occurred in a match between professional Go players. We discuss our measures applications in domains other than Go, especially in domains in which AIs decision making ability will likely surpass that of human experts.
الأسئلة المقترحة
سجل دخول لتتمكن من نشر تعليقات
التعليقات
جاري جلب التعليقات
سجل دخول لتتمكن من متابعة معايير البحث التي قمت باختيارها
