Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2204.00617 v1 pith:PFPXANLU submitted 2022-03-23 eess.IV cs.AIcs.CVcs.LG

Visual explanations for polyp detection: How medical doctors assess intrinsic versus extrinsic explanations

classification eess.IV cs.AIcs.CVcs.LG
keywords explanationsmedicaldoctorsmethodscurrentintrinsicopinionblack
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Deep learning has in recent years achieved immense success in all areas of computer vision and has the potential of assisting medical doctors in analyzing visual content for disease and other abnormalities. However, the current state of deep learning is very much a black box, making medical professionals highly skeptical about integrating these methods into clinical practice. Several methods have been proposed in order to shine some light onto these black boxes, but there is no consensus on the opinion of the medical doctors that will consume these explanations. This paper presents a study asking medical doctors about their opinion of current state-of-the-art explainable artificial intelligence methods when applied to a gastrointestinal disease detection use case. We compare two different categories of explanation methods, intrinsic and extrinsic, and gauge their opinion of the current value of these explanations. The results indicate that intrinsic explanations are preferred and that explanation.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.