Stephen Wallace

Sumedha Singla, Stephen Wallace, Sofia Triantafillou et al.

Model explainability is essential for the creation of trustworthy Machine Learning models in healthcare. An ideal explanation resembles the decision-making process of a domain expert and is expressed using concepts or terminology that is meaningful to the clinicians. To provide such an explanation, we first associate the hidden units of the classifier to clinically relevant concepts. We take advantage of radiology reports accompanying the chest X-ray images to define concepts. We discover sparse associations between concepts and hidden units using a linear sparse logistic regression. To ensure that the identified units truly influence the classifier's outcome, we adopt tools from Causal Inference literature and, more specifically, mediation analysis through counterfactual interventions. Finally, we construct a low-depth decision tree to translate all the discovered concepts into a straightforward decision rule, expressed to the radiologist. We evaluated our approach on a large chest x-ray dataset, where our model produces a global explanation consistent with clinical knowledge.

Sumedha Singla, Motahhare Eslami, Brian Pollack et al.

We propose a BlackBox Counterfactual Explainer, designed to explain image classification models for medical applications. Classical approaches (e.g., saliency maps) that assess feature importance do not explain "how" imaging features in important anatomical regions are relevant to the classification decision. Our framework explains the decision for a target class by gradually "exaggerating" the semantic effect of the class in a query image. We adopted a Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) to generate a progressive set of perturbations to a query image, such that the classification decision changes from its original class to its negation. We used counterfactual explanations from our framework to audit a classifier trained on a chest x-ray dataset with multiple labels. We proposed clinically-relevant quantitative metrics such as cardiothoracic ratio and the score of a healthy costophrenic recess to evaluate our explanations. We conducted a human-grounded experiment with diagnostic radiology residents to compare different styles of explanations (no explanation, saliency map, cycleGAN explanation, and our counterfactual explanation) by evaluating different aspects of explanations: (1) understandability, (2) classifier's decision justification, (3) visual quality, (d) identity preservation, and (5) overall helpfulness of an explanation to the users. Our results show that our counterfactual explanation was the only explanation method that significantly improved the users' understanding of the classifier's decision compared to the no-explanation baseline. Our metrics established a benchmark for evaluating model explanation methods in medical images. Our explanations revealed that the classifier relied on clinically relevant radiographic features for its diagnostic decisions, thus making its decision-making process more transparent to the end-user.