4.7 Article

Interpretable and intervenable ultrasonography-based machine learning models for pediatric appendicitis

期刊

MEDICAL IMAGE ANALYSIS
卷 91, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.media.2023.103042

关键词

Interpretable machine learning; Multiview learning; Concepts; Classification; Pediatric appendicitis; Ultrasound imaging

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study presents interpretable machine learning models for predicting the diagnosis, management, and severity of suspected appendicitis using ultrasound images. The proposed models utilize concept bottleneck models (CBM) that facilitate interpretation and intervention by clinicians, without compromising performance or requiring time-consuming image annotation.
Appendicitis is among the most frequent reasons for pediatric abdominal surgeries. Previous decision support systems for appendicitis have focused on clinical, laboratory, scoring, and computed tomography data and have ignored abdominal ultrasound, despite its noninvasive nature and widespread availability. In this work, we present interpretable machine learning models for predicting the diagnosis, management and severity of suspected appendicitis using ultrasound images. Our approach utilizes concept bottleneck models (CBM) that facilitate interpretation and interaction with high-level concepts understandable to clinicians. Furthermore, we extend CBMs to prediction problems with multiple views and incomplete concept sets. Our models were trained on a dataset comprising 579 pediatric patients with 1709 ultrasound images accompanied by clinical and laboratory data. Results show that our proposed method enables clinicians to utilize a human-understandable and intervenable predictive model without compromising performance or requiring time-consuming image annotation when deployed. For predicting the diagnosis, the extended multiview CBM attained an AUROC of 0.80 and an AUPR of 0.92, performing comparably to similar black-box neural networks trained and tested on the same dataset.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据