Asia-Pacific journal of ophthalmology (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2024
The role of saliency maps in enhancing ophthalmologists' trust in artificial intelligence models.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wong Carolyn Yu Tung, Antaki Fares, Woodward-Court Peter, Ong Ariel Yuhan, Keane Pearse A
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Saliency maps (SM) allow clinicians to better understand the opaque decision-making process in artificial intelligence (AI) models by visualising the important features responsible for predictions. This ultimately improves interpretability and confidence. In this work, we review the use case for SMs, exploring their impact on clinicians' understanding and trust in AI models. We use the following ophthalmic conditions as examples: (1) glaucoma, (2) myopia, (3) age-related macular degeneration, and (4) diabetic retinopathy.
METHOD: A multi-field search on MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science was conducted using specific keywords. Only studies on the use of SMs in glaucoma, myopia, AMD, or DR were considered for inclusion.
RESULTS: Findings reveal that SMs are often used to validate AI models and advocate for their adoption, potentially leading to biased claims. Overlooking the technical limitations of SMs, and the conductance of superficial assessments of their quality and relevance, was discerned. Uncertainties persist regarding the role of saliency maps in building trust in AI. It is crucial to enhance understanding of SMs' technical constraints and improve evaluation of their quality, impact, and suitability for specific tasks. Establishing a standardised framework for selecting and assessing SMs, as well as exploring their relationship with other reliability sources (e.g. safety and generalisability), is essential for enhancing clinicians' trust in AI.
CONCLUSION: We conclude that SMs are not beneficial for interpretability and trust-building purposes in their current forms. Instead, SMs may confer benefits to model debugging, model performance enhancement, and hypothesis testing (e.g. novel biomarkers).
METHOD: A multi-field search on MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science was conducted using specific keywords. Only studies on the use of SMs in glaucoma, myopia, AMD, or DR were considered for inclusion.
RESULTS: Findings reveal that SMs are often used to validate AI models and advocate for their adoption, potentially leading to biased claims. Overlooking the technical limitations of SMs, and the conductance of superficial assessments of their quality and relevance, was discerned. Uncertainties persist regarding the role of saliency maps in building trust in AI. It is crucial to enhance understanding of SMs' technical constraints and improve evaluation of their quality, impact, and suitability for specific tasks. Establishing a standardised framework for selecting and assessing SMs, as well as exploring their relationship with other reliability sources (e.g. safety and generalisability), is essential for enhancing clinicians' trust in AI.
CONCLUSION: We conclude that SMs are not beneficial for interpretability and trust-building purposes in their current forms. Instead, SMs may confer benefits to model debugging, model performance enhancement, and hypothesis testing (e.g. novel biomarkers).