Abstract
Machine learning (ML), one aspect of artificial intelligence (AI), involves computer algorithms that train themselves. They have been widely applied in the healthcare domain. However, many trained ML algorithms operate as “black boxes”, producing a prediction from input data without a clear explanation of their workings. Non-transparent predictions are of limited utility in many clinical domains, where decisions must be justifiable.
Here, we apply class-contrastive counterfactual reasoning to ML to demonstrate how specific changes in inputs lead to different predictions of mortality in people with severe mental illness (SMI), a major public health challenge. We produce predictions accompanied by visual and textual explanations as to how the prediction would have differed given specific changes to the input. We apply it to routinely collected data from a mental health secondary care provider in patients with schizophrenia. Using a data structuring framework informed by clinical knowledge, we captured information on physical health, mental health, and social predisposing factors. We then trained an ML algorithm and other statistical learning techniques to predict the risk of death.
The ML algorithm predicted mortality with an area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.80 (95% confidence intervals [0.78, 0.82]). We used class-contrastive analysis to produce explanations for the model predictions. We outline the scenarios in which class-contrastive analysis is likely to be successful in producing explanations for model predictions. Our aim is not to advocate for a particular model but show an application of the class-contrastive analysis technique to electronic healthcare record data for a disease of public health significance.
In patients with schizophrenia, our work suggests that use or prescription of medications like antide-pressants was associated with lower risk of death. Abuse of alcohol/drugs and a diagnosis of delirium were associated with higher risk of death. Our ML models highlight the role of co-morbidities in determining mortality in patients with SMI and the need to manage them. We hope that some of these bio-social factors can be targeted therapeutically by either patient-level or service-level interventions. Our approach combines clinical knowledge, health data, and statistical learning, to make predictions interpretable to clinicians using class-contrastive reasoning. This is a step towards interpretable AI in the management of patients with SMI and potentially other diseases.
Competing Interest Statement
RNC consults for Campden Instruments Ltd and receives royalties from Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Enterprise, and Routledge. SB, PL and PJ declare they have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Funding Statement
This work was funded by an MRC Mental Health Data Pathfinder grant (MC_PC_17213). PBJ is supported by the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration East of England. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. This research was supported in part by the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the MRC, the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The CPFT Research Database operates under UK NHS Research Ethics approvals (REC references 12/EE/0407, 17/EE/0442; IRAS project ID 237953).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Changed abstract and edited funding information
Data Availability
This study reports on human clinical data which cannot be published directly due to reasonable privacy concerns, as per NHS research ethics approvals and information governance rules.
