Abstract
We present an explainable artificial intelligence methodology for predicting mortality in patients. We combine clinical data from an electronic patient healthcare record system with factors relevant for severe mental illness and then apply machine learning.
The machine learning model is used to predict mortality in patients with severe mental illness.
Our methodology uses class-contrastive reasoning. We show how machine learning scientists can use class-contrastive reasoning to generate complex explanations that explain machine model predictions and the data.
An example of a complex class-contrastive explanation is the following: “ The patient is predicted to have a low probability of death because the patient has self-harmed before, and was at some point on medications such as first-generation and second-generation antipsychotics. There are 11 other patients with these characteristics. If the patient did not have these characteristics, the prediction would be different. ”
This can be used to generate new hypotheses which can be tested in follow-up studies.
Our technique can be employed to create intricate explanations from healthcare data and possibly other areas where explainability is important. We hope this will be a step towards explainable AI in personalized medicine.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
SB acknowledges funding from the Accelerate Programme for Scientific Discovery Research Fellowship. This work was also partially funded by an MRC Mental Health Data Pathfinder grant (MC PC 17213). and was supported by the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre (NIHR203312) and the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration East of England. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the funders, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
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 approved this and 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, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
supplementary section revised. The section has now been moved to Methods.
Data availability
The CPFT Research Database is private. This study reports on human clinical data which cannot be published directly due to reasonable privacy concerns, as per NHS research ethics approvals and NHS information governance rules.
