Evaluating Explainable Machine Learning Models for Clinicians

Gaining clinicians’ trust will unleash the full potential of artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine, and explaining AI decisions is seen as the way to build trustworthy systems. However, explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) methods in medicine often lack a proper evaluation. In this paper, we present our evaluation methodology for XAI methods using forward simulatability. We define the Forward Simulatability Score (FSS) and analyze its limitations in the context of clinical predictors. Then, we applied FSS to our XAI approach defined over an ML-RO, a machine learning clinical predictor based on random optimization over a multiple kernel support vector machine (SVM) algorithm. To Compare FSS values before and after the explanation phase, we test our evaluation methodology for XAI methods on three clinical datasets, namely breast cancer, VTE, and migraine. The ML-RO system is a good model on which to test our XAI evaluation strategy based on the FSS. Indeed, ML-RO outperforms two other base models—a decision tree (DT) and a plain SVM—in the three datasets and gives the possibility of defining different XAI models: TOPK, MIGF, and F4G. The FSS evaluation score suggests that the explanation method F4G for the ML-RO is the most effective in two datasets out of the three tested, and it shows the limits of the learned model for one dataset. Our study aims to introduce a standard practice for evaluating XAI methods in medicine. By establishing a rigorous evaluation framework, we seek to provide healthcare professionals with reliable tools for assessing the performance of XAI methods to enhance the adoption of AI systems in clinical practice.