Search

Adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithms into the clinical realm will depend on their inherent trustworthiness, which is built not only by robust validation studies but is also deeply linked to the explainability and interpretability of the algorithms. Most validation studies for medical imaging AI report the performance of algorithms on study-level labels and lay little emphasis on measuring the accuracy of explanations generated by these algorithms in the form of heat maps or bounding boxes, especially in true positive cases. We propose a new metric - Explainability Failure Ratio (EFR) - derived from Clinical Explainability Failure (CEF) to address this gap in AI evaluation. We define an Explainability Failure as a case where the classification generated by an AI algorithm matches with study-level ground truth but the explanation output generated by the algorithm is inadequate to explain the algorithm's output. We measured EFR for two algorithms that automatically detect consolidation on chest X-rays to determine the applicability of the metric and observed a lower EFR for the model that had lower sensitivity for identifying consolidation on chest X-rays, implying that the trustworthiness of a model should be determined not only by routine statistical metrics but also by novel 'clinically-oriented' models.

Adoption of artificial intelligence medical imaging applications is often impeded by barriers between healthcare systems and algorithm developers given that access to both private patient data and commercial model IP is important to perform pre-deployment evaluation. This work investigates a framework for secure, privacy-preserving and AI-enabled medical imaging inference using CrypTFlow2, a state-of-the-art end-to-end compiler allowing cryptographically secure 2-party Computation (2PC) protocols between the machine learning model vendor and target patient data owner. A common DenseNet-121 chest x-ray diagnosis model was evaluated on multi-institutional chest radiographic imaging datasets both with and without CrypTFlow2 on two test sets spanning seven sites across the US and India, and comprising 1,149 chest x-ray images. We measure comparative AUROC performance between secure and insecure inference in multiple pathology classification tasks, and explore model output distributional shifts and resource constraints introduced by secure model inference. Secure inference with CrypTFlow2 demonstrated no significant difference in AUROC for all diagnoses, and model outputs from secure and insecure inference methods were distributionally equivalent. The use of CrypTFlow2 may allow off-the-shelf secure 2PC between healthcare systems and AI model vendors for medical imaging, without changes in performance, and can facilitate scalable pre-deployment infrastructure for real-world secure model evaluation without exposure to patient data or model IP.

Adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithms into the clinical realm will depend on their inherent trustworthiness, which is built not only by robust validation studies but is also deeply linked to the explainability and interpretability of the algorithms. Most validation studies for medical imaging AI report performance of algorithms on study-level labels and lay little emphasis on measuring the accuracy of explanations generated by these algorithms in the form of heat maps or bounding boxes, especially in true positive cases. We propose a new metric – Explainability Failure Ratio (EFR) – derived from Clinical Explainability Failure (CEF) to address this gap in AI evaluation. We define an Explainability Failure as a case where the classification generated by an AI algorithm matches with study-level ground truth but the explanation output generated by the algorithm is inadequate to explain the algorithms output. We measured EFR for two algorithms that automatically detect consolidation on chest X-rays to determine the applicability of the metric and observed a lower EFR for the model that had lower sensitivity for identifying consolidation on chest X-rays, implying that trustworthiness of a model should be determined not only by routine statistical metrics but also by novel ‘clinically-oriented’ models.