Explainability in medicine in an era of AI-based clinical decision support systems

This is the final version. Available on open access from Frontiers Media via the DOI in this recordData availability statement: The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material; further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.The combination of "Big Data" and Artificial Intelligence (AI) is frequently promoted as having the potential to deliver valuable health benefits when applied to medical decision-making. However, the responsible adoption of AI-based clinical decision support systems faces several challenges at both the individual and societal level. One of the features that has given rise to particular concern is the issue of explainability, since, if the way an algorithm arrived at a particular output is not known (or knowable) to a physician, this may lead to multiple challenges, including an inability to evaluate the merits of the output. This "opacity" problem has led to questions about whether physicians are justified in relying on the algorithmic output, with some scholars insisting on the centrality of explainability, while others see no reason to require of AI that which is not required of physicians. We consider that there is merit in both views but find that greater nuance is necessary in order to elucidate the underlying function of explainability in clinical practice and, therefore, its relevance in the context of AI for clinical use. In this paper, we explore explainability by examining what it requires in clinical medicine and draw a distinction between the function of explainability for the current patient versus the future patient. This distinction has implications for what explainability requires in the short and long term. We highlight the role of transparency in explainability, and identify semantic transparency as fundamental to the issue of explainability itself. We argue that, in day-to-day clinical practice, accuracy is sufficient as an "epistemic warrant" for clinical decision-making, and that the most compelling reason for requiring explainability in the sense of scientific or causal explanation is the potential for improving future care by building a more robust model of the world. We identify the goal of clinical decision-making as being to deliver the best possible outcome as often as possible, and find-that accuracy is sufficient justification for intervention for today's patient, as long as efforts to uncover scientific explanations continue to improve healthcare for future patients.Research Foundation Flanders (FWO

Radiative decay lifetimes of CH^-₂

Recently the presence and radiative decay of vibrationally excited CH - 2, generated in a hot cathode discharge of methane, was established by measuring the time dependent photodetachment from excited states of CH - 2 as it radiatively relaxed in a high vacuum ion trap. The time dependence of the photodetachment was found to be consistent with an electron affinity of 5250 cm^−1 (0.65 eV) for ground state X-tilde 3B1 methylene. The radiative decay lifetimes of the first three excited bending vibrations of CH - 2 were also tentatively assigned. Here, we report a more refined analysis of the experimental data along with theoretical ab initio determinations of the radiative decay lifetimes of the first four excited bending vibrational levels of CH - 2. There is some discrepancy between the ab initio values (431, 207, 118, and 68 ms for the v2=1, 2, 3, and 4 levels respectively) and the experimental values (525, 70, and 14 ms for v2=1, 2, and 3 respectively) for v2=2 and 3. Possible reasons for this discrepancy are discussed but none of the alternatives are entirely satisfactory

Factors influencing the decision to start renal replacement therapy: results of a survey among European nephrologists

Background: Little is known about the criteria nephrologists use in the decision of when to start renal replacement therapy (RRT) in early referred adult patients. We evaluated opinions of European nephrologists on the decision for when to start RRT. Study Design: European web-based survey. Predictors: Patient presentations described as uncomplicated patients, patients with unfavorable clinical and unfavorable social conditions, or patients with specific clinical, social, and logistical factors. Setting & Participants: Nephrologists from 11 European countries. Outcomes & Measurements: We studied opinions of European nephrologists about the influence of clinical, social, and logistical factors on decision making regarding when to start RRT, reflecting practices in place in 2009. Questions included target levels of kidney function at the start of RRT and factors accelerating or postponing RRT initiation. Using linear regression, we studied determinants of target estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at the start of RRT. Results: We received 433 completed surveys. The median target eGFR selected to start RRT in uncomplicated patients was 10.0 (25th-75th percentile, 8.0-10.0) mL/min/1.73 m(2). Level of excretory kidney function was considered the most important factor in decision making regarding uncomplicated patients (selected by 54% of respondents); in patients with unfavorable clinical versus social conditions, this factor was selected by 24% versus 32%, respectively. Acute clinical factors such as life-threatening hyperkalemia refractory to medical therapy (100%) and uremic pericarditis (98%) elicited a preference for an immediate start, whereas patient preference (69%) and vascular dementia (66%) postponed the start. Higher target eGFRs were reported by respondents from high-versus low-RRT-incidence countries (10.4 [95% CI, 9.9-10.9] vs 9.1 mL/min/1.73 m(2)) and from for-profit versus not-for-profit centers (10.1 [95% CI, 9.5-10.7] vs 9.5 mL/min/1.73 m(2)). Limitations: We were unable to calculate the exact response rate and examined opinions rather than practice for 433 nephrologists. Conclusions: Only for uncomplicated patients did half the nephrologists consider excretory kidney function as the most important factor. Future studies should assess the weight of each factor affecting decision making. Am J Kidney Dis. 60(6): 940-948. (C) 2012 by the National Kidney Foundation, In

Establishing Core Outcome Domains in Hemodialysis: Report of the Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Hemodialysis (SONG-HD) Consensus Workshop

Evidence-informed decision making in clinical care and policy in nephrology is undermined by trials that selectively report a large number of heterogeneous outcomes, many of which are not patient centered. The Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Hemodialysis (SONG-HD) Initiative convened an international consensus workshop on November 7, 2015, to discuss the identification and implementation of a potential core outcome set for all trials in hemodialysis. The purpose of this article is to report qualitative analyses of the workshop discussions, describing the key aspects to consider when establishing core outcomes in trials involving patients on hemodialysis therapy. Key stakeholders including 8 patients/caregivers and 47 health professionals (nephrologists, policymakers, industry, and researchers) attended the workshop. Attendees suggested that identifying core outcomes required equitable stakeholder engagement to ensure relevance across patient populations, flexibility to consider evolving priorities over time, deconstruction of language and meaning for conceptual consistency and clarity, understanding of potential overlap and associations between outcomes, and an assessment of applicability to the range of interventions in hemodialysis. For implementation, they proposed that core outcomes must have simple, inexpensive, and validated outcome measures that could be used in clinical care (quality indicators) and trials (including pragmatic trials) and endorsement by regulatory agencies. Integrating these recommendations may foster acceptance and optimize the uptake and translation of core outcomes in hemodialysis, leading to more informative research, for better treatment and improved patient outcomes

Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Transplantation: A Global Initiative to Develop a Core Outcome Set for Trials in Kidney Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Although advances in treatment have dramatically improved short-term graft survival and acute rejection in kidney transplant recipients, long-term graft outcomes have not substantially improved. Transplant recipients also have a considerably increased risk of cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and infection, which all contribute to appreciable morbidity and premature mortality. Many trials in kidney transplantation are short-term, frequently use unvalidated surrogate endpoints, outcomes of uncertain relevance to patients and clinicians, and do not consistently measure and report key outcomes like death, graft loss, graft function, and adverse effects of therapy. This diminishes the value of trials in supporting treatment decisions that require individual-level multiple tradeoffs between graft survival and the risk of side effects, adverse events, and mortality. The Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Transplantation initiative aims to develop a core outcome set for trials in kidney transplantation that is based on the shared priorities of all stakeholders. METHODS: This will include a systematic review to identify outcomes reported in randomized trials, a Delphi survey with an international multistakeholder panel (patients, caregivers, clinicians, researchers, policy makers, members from industry) to develop a consensus-based prioritized list of outcome domains and a consensus workshop to review and finalize the core outcome set for trials in kidney transplantation. CONCLUSIONS: Developing and implementing a core outcome set to be reported, at a minimum, in all kidney transplantation trials will improve the transparency, quality, and relevance of research; to enable kidney transplant recipients and their clinicians to make better-informed treatment decisions for improved patient outcomes

Developing a Set of Core Outcomes for Trials in Haemodialysis: An International Delphi Survey

AIM: To generate a consensus-based, prioritized list of core outcomes for trials in haemodialysis. BACKGROUND: Survival and quality of life for patients on haemodialysis remain poor despite substantial research efforts. Existing trials often report surrogate outcomes that may not be relevant to patients and clinicians. A core outcome set that reflects stakeholder priorities would improve the relevance, efficiency, and comparability of haemodialysis trials. METHODS: In an online Delphi survey, participants rated the importance of outcomes using a 9-point Likert scale. In Round 2 and 3, participants reviewed the scores and comments of other respondents and re-rated the outcomes. For each outcome, we calculated the median, mean, and proportion rating 7-9 (“critically important”). RESULTS: 1,181 participants (202 [17%] patients/caregivers, 979 health professionals) from 73 countries completed Round 1 and 838 (150 [18%] patients/caregivers) completed Round 3 (71% response rate). Outcomes achieving consensus as high priorities across both groups were: vascular access complications, cardiovascular disease, mortality, dialysis adequacy and fatigue. Patients/caregivers rated four outcomes higher than health professionals: ability to travel (mean difference 0.9), dialysis-free time (0.5), dialysis adequacy (0.3), and washed out after dialysis (0.2). Health professionals rated 11 outcomes higher: mortality (1.0), hospitalization (1.0), drop in blood pressure (1.0), vascular access complications (0.9), depression (0.9), cardiovascular disease (0.8), target weight (0.7), infection (0.4), potassium (0.4), ability to work (0.3), and pain (0.3). CONCLUSIONS: The top stakeholder prioritized outcomes were vascular access problems, cardiovascular disease, mortality, dialysis adequacy and fatigue. Patients/caregivers gave higher priority to lifestyle-related outcomes than health professionals. This prioritized set of outcomes can inform the establishment of a core outcome set, to improve the value of trial evidence to support decision-making for people on haemodialysis

Clinicians' and researchers' perspectives on establishing and implementing core outcomes in haemodialysis: semistructured interview study

Objectives: To describe the perspectives of clinicians and researchers on identifying, establishing and implementing core outcomes in haemodialysis and their expected impact. / Design: Face-to-face, semistructured interviews; thematic analysis. / Stetting: Twenty-seven centres across nine countries. / Participants: Fifty-eight nephrologists (42 (72%) who were also triallists). / Results: We identified six themes: reflecting direct patient relevance and impact (survival as the primary goal of dialysis, enabling well-being and functioning, severe consequences of comorbidities and complications, indicators of treatment success, universal relevance, stakeholder consensus); amenable and responsive to interventions (realistic and possible to intervene on, differentiating between treatments); reflective of economic burden on healthcare; feasibility of implementation (clarity and consistency in definition, easily measurable, requiring minimal resources, creating a cultural shift, aversion to intensifying bureaucracy, allowing justifiable exceptions); authoritative inducement and directive (endorsement for legitimacy, necessity of buy-in from dialysis providers, incentivising uptake); instituting patient-centredness (explicitly addressing patient-important outcomes, reciprocating trial participation, improving comparability of interventions for decision-making, driving quality improvement and compelling a focus on quality of life). / Conclusions: Nephrologists emphasised that core outcomes should be relevant to patients, amenable to change, feasible to implement and supported by stakeholder organisations. They expected core outcomes would improve patient-centred care and outcomes

Development of an international standard set of value-based outcome measures for patients with chronic kidney disease : a report of the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) CKD working group

Value-based health care is increasingly promoted as a strategy for improving care quality by benchmarking outcomes that matter to patients relative to the cost of obtaining those outcomes. To support the shift toward value-based health care in chronic kidney disease (CKD), the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) assembled an international working group of health professionals and patient representatives to develop a standardized minimum set of patient-centered outcomes targeted for clinical use. The considered outcomes and patient-reported outcome measures were generated from systematic literature reviews. Feedback was sought from patients and health professionals. Patients with very high-risk CKD (stages G3a/A3 and G3b/A2-G5, including dialysis, kidney transplantation, and conservative care) were selected as the target population. Using an online modified Delphi process, outcomes important to all patients were selected, such as survival and hospitalization, and to treatment-specific subgroups, such as vascular access survival and kidney allograft survival. Patient-reported outcome measures were included to capture domains of health-related quality of life, which were rated as the most important outcomes by patients. Demographic and clinical variables were identified to be used as case-mix adjusters. Use of these consensus recommendations could enable institutions to monitor, compare, and improve the quality of their CKD care

Back to Basics: Pitting Edema and the Optimization of Hypertension Treatment in Incident Peritoneal Dialysis Patients (BRAZPD)

Systemic arterial hypertension is an important risk factor for cardiovascular disease that is frequently observed in populations with declining renal function. Initiation of renal replacement therapy at least partially decreases signs of fluid overload; however, high blood pressure levels persist in the majority of patients after dialysis initiation. Hypervolemia due to water retention predisposes peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients to hypertension and can clinically manifest in several forms, including peripheral edema. The approaches to detect edema, which include methods such as bioimpedance, inferior vena cava diameter and biomarkers, are not always available to physicians worldwide. For clinical examinations, the presence of pitting located in the lower extremities and/or over the sacrum to diagnose the presence of peripheral edema in their patients are frequently utulized. We evaluated the impact of edema on the control of blood pressure of incident PD patients during the first year of dialysis treatment. Patients were recruited from 114 Brazilian dialysis centers that were participating in the BRAZPD study for a total of 1089 incident patients. Peripheral edema was diagnosed by the presence of pitting after finger pressure was applied to the edematous area. Patients were divided into 2 groups: those with and without edema according to the monthly medical evaluation. Blood arterial pressure, body mass index, the number of antihypertensive drugs and comorbidities were analyzed. We observed an initial BP reduction in the first five months and a stabilization of blood pressure levels from five to twelve months. The edematous group exhibited higher blood pressure levels than the group without edema during the follow-up. The results strongly indicate that the presence of a simple and easily detectable clinical sign of peripheral edema is a very relevant tool that could be used to re-evaluate not only the patient's clinical hypertensive status but also the PD prescription and patient compliance