Literature DB >> 35326000

Commentary: Is human supervision needed for artificial intelligence?

John Davis Akkara1, Anju Kuriakose2.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35326000      PMCID: PMC9240529          DOI: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_3147_21

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Indian J Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0301-4738            Impact factor:   2.969


× No keyword cloud information.
The role of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) in ophthalmology is well documented, with several studies on its role in diagnosing, treating, and prognosticating various eye diseases.[1] The rise of machines and AI is inevitable, and we must all be prepared for it. For every technological advancement, humans have always found ways to use their power for good and evil. The same is true for the fast-growing technologies of AI and ML as well. The authors of the accompanying article[2] developed a novel AI algorithm for detecting glaucoma with human in the loop (HITL) for annotation to supervise the learning of the algorithm. This is unlike several other ML studies that tried to identify glaucoma from fundus images by using deep learning techniques[3] that do not use HITL.

The black box problem

There is much confusion about the black box problem of AI.[4] Many AI algorithms are not explainable, even by the programmers who created them, as the code evolves over several virtual generations and ends up as a complex code whose working is opaque to us humans. We are unable to see the “rough work,” only the final answer. Thus, especially in the critical field of healthcare, there is a big doubt whether we can trust AI.[5]

Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI)

XAI is a set of processes and methods that allows humans to understand and trust the results and output created by ML algorithms. It describes the AI model, its expected impact, and potential biases. Especially in healthcare, AI-powered decision-making can be trusted only with open information about accuracy, fairness, transparency, and outcomes of the ML algorithms.[6] As the complexity of ML increases, there is a trade-off between its accuracy and its ability to generate explainable and interpretable conclusions. There are now several approaches to avoid the black box problem and try to develop an XAI. One is to use integrated gradients explanation to display a heatmap over the image being interpreted.[7] This can be easily understood by a human and often helps to pick up details that may have been missed.

Interpretability and explainability

Doshi-Velez and Kim defined interpretability as “the ability to explain or to present in understandable terms to a human.”[8] Another researcher named Miller defined interpretability as “the degree to which a human can understand the cause of a decision.”[9] Thus, interpretability relates to the ease of understanding the intuition behind the output of the ML algorithm. Meanwhile, explainability relates to the internal logic and mechanics of the ML model.

Human in the loop (HITL)

Fully automatic deep learning is what many researchers attempt to develop and is convenient. However, the unique challenges of medical image interpretation mean that human-in-the-loop (HITL)[10] ML may be a better option for safer, accurate results and to prevent gross mistakes. A human expert in the subject marking annotations and giving feedback for reinforcement learning would make the algorithm much better.

Future of AI and ML

There is no doubt that AI and ML are here to stay and will embed into multiple facets of modern life. Healthcare is one of the areas that will be greatly affected by AL and ML. The fourth industrial revolution (4IR) has brought rapid developments in technology accessible to all.
  7 in total

1.  Defining the undefinable: the black box problem in healthcare artificial intelligence.

Authors:  Jordan Joseph Wadden
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2021-07-21       Impact factor: 2.903

2.  Using a Deep Learning Algorithm and Integrated Gradients Explanation to Assist Grading for Diabetic Retinopathy.

Authors:  Rory Sayres; Ankur Taly; Ehsan Rahimy; Katy Blumer; David Coz; Naama Hammel; Jonathan Krause; Arunachalam Narayanaswamy; Zahra Rastegar; Derek Wu; Shawn Xu; Scott Barb; Anthony Joseph; Michael Shumski; Jesse Smith; Arjun B Sood; Greg S Corrado; Lily Peng; Dale R Webster
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2018-12-13       Impact factor: 12.079

Review 3.  A survey on active learning and human-in-the-loop deep learning for medical image analysis.

Authors:  Samuel Budd; Emma C Robinson; Bernhard Kainz
Journal:  Med Image Anal       Date:  2021-04-09       Impact factor: 8.545

4.  Commentary: Rise of machine learning and artificial intelligence in ophthalmology.

Authors:  John Davis Akkara; Anju Kuriakose
Journal:  Indian J Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-07       Impact factor: 1.848

5.  Commentary: Artificial intelligence for everything: Can we trust it?

Authors:  John Davis Akkara; Anju Kuriakose
Journal:  Indian J Ophthalmol       Date:  2020-07       Impact factor: 1.848

6.  Identification of glaucoma from fundus images using deep learning techniques.

Authors:  S Ajitha; John D Akkara; M V Judy
Journal:  Indian J Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-10       Impact factor: 1.848

7.  Utilizing human intelligence in artificial intelligence for detecting glaucomatous fundus images using human-in-the-loop machine learning.

Authors:  Prasanna Venkatesh Ramesh; Tamilselvan Subramaniam; Prajnya Ray; Aji Kunnath Devadas; Shruthy Vaishali Ramesh; Sheik Mohamed Ansar; Meena Kumari Ramesh; Ramesh Rajasekaran; Sathyan Parthasarathi
Journal:  Indian J Ophthalmol       Date:  2022-04       Impact factor: 2.969

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.