可解释医疗人工智能的优点。

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2023-01-10 DOI:10.1017/S0963180122000664
Joshua Hatherley, Robert Sparrow, Mark Howard
{"title":"可解释医疗人工智能的优点。","authors":"Joshua Hatherley, Robert Sparrow, Mark Howard","doi":"10.1017/S0963180122000664","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Artificial intelligence (AI) systems have demonstrated impressive performance across a variety of clinical tasks. However, notoriously, sometimes these systems are \"black boxes.\" The initial response in the literature was a demand for \"explainable AI.\" However, recently, several authors have suggested that making AI more explainable or \"interpretable\" is likely to be at the cost of the accuracy of these systems and that prioritizing interpretability in medical AI may constitute a \"lethal prejudice.\" In this paper, we defend the value of interpretability in the context of the use of AI in medicine. Clinicians may prefer interpretable systems over more accurate black boxes, which in turn is sufficient to give designers of AI reason to prefer more interpretable systems in order to ensure that AI is adopted and its benefits realized. Moreover, clinicians may be justified in this preference. Achieving the downstream benefits from AI is critically dependent on how the outputs of these systems are interpreted by physicians and patients. A preference for the use of highly accurate black box AI systems, over less accurate but more interpretable systems, may itself constitute a form of lethal prejudice that may diminish the benefits of AI to-and perhaps even harm-patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":55300,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"323-332"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Virtues of Interpretable Medical AI.\",\"authors\":\"Joshua Hatherley, Robert Sparrow, Mark Howard\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0963180122000664\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Artificial intelligence (AI) systems have demonstrated impressive performance across a variety of clinical tasks. However, notoriously, sometimes these systems are \\\"black boxes.\\\" The initial response in the literature was a demand for \\\"explainable AI.\\\" However, recently, several authors have suggested that making AI more explainable or \\\"interpretable\\\" is likely to be at the cost of the accuracy of these systems and that prioritizing interpretability in medical AI may constitute a \\\"lethal prejudice.\\\" In this paper, we defend the value of interpretability in the context of the use of AI in medicine. Clinicians may prefer interpretable systems over more accurate black boxes, which in turn is sufficient to give designers of AI reason to prefer more interpretable systems in order to ensure that AI is adopted and its benefits realized. Moreover, clinicians may be justified in this preference. Achieving the downstream benefits from AI is critically dependent on how the outputs of these systems are interpreted by physicians and patients. A preference for the use of highly accurate black box AI systems, over less accurate but more interpretable systems, may itself constitute a form of lethal prejudice that may diminish the benefits of AI to-and perhaps even harm-patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55300,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"323-332\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180122000664\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/1/10 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180122000664","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人工智能(AI)系统在各种临床任务中的表现令人印象深刻。然而,众所周知,这些系统有时是 "黑盒子"。文献中最初的回应是要求 "可解释的人工智能"。然而,最近有几位作者提出,提高人工智能的可解释性或 "可解释性 "很可能会以牺牲这些系统的准确性为代价,而且在医学人工智能中优先考虑可解释性可能会构成 "致命的偏见"。在本文中,我们将结合人工智能在医学中的应用,为可解释性的价值进行辩护。临床医生可能更喜欢可解释的系统,而不是更精确的黑盒子,这反过来又足以让人工智能的设计者有理由更喜欢可解释的系统,以确保人工智能被采用并实现其优势。此外,临床医生也有理由这样做。要实现人工智能的下游效益,关键取决于医生和患者如何解读这些系统的输出结果。偏好使用高度精确的黑盒人工智能系统,而不是精确度较低但可解释性更强的系统,这本身就可能构成一种致命的偏见,可能会减少人工智能给患者带来的益处,甚至可能对患者造成伤害。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Virtues of Interpretable Medical AI.

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems have demonstrated impressive performance across a variety of clinical tasks. However, notoriously, sometimes these systems are "black boxes." The initial response in the literature was a demand for "explainable AI." However, recently, several authors have suggested that making AI more explainable or "interpretable" is likely to be at the cost of the accuracy of these systems and that prioritizing interpretability in medical AI may constitute a "lethal prejudice." In this paper, we defend the value of interpretability in the context of the use of AI in medicine. Clinicians may prefer interpretable systems over more accurate black boxes, which in turn is sufficient to give designers of AI reason to prefer more interpretable systems in order to ensure that AI is adopted and its benefits realized. Moreover, clinicians may be justified in this preference. Achieving the downstream benefits from AI is critically dependent on how the outputs of these systems are interpreted by physicians and patients. A preference for the use of highly accurate black box AI systems, over less accurate but more interpretable systems, may itself constitute a form of lethal prejudice that may diminish the benefits of AI to-and perhaps even harm-patients.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
127
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics is designed to address the challenges of biology, medicine and healthcare and to meet the needs of professionals serving on healthcare ethics committees in hospitals, nursing homes, hospices and rehabilitation centres. The aim of the journal is to serve as the international forum for the wide range of serious and urgent issues faced by members of healthcare ethics committees, physicians, nurses, social workers, clergy, lawyers and community representatives.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信