Agents that Argue and Explain Classifications of Retinal Conditions

Purpose: Expertise for auditing AI systems in medical domain is only now being accumulated. Conformity assessment procedures will require AI systems: 1) to be transparent, 2) not to rely decisions solely on algorithms, or iii) to include safety assurance cases in the documentation to facilitate technical audit. We are interested here in obtaining transparency in the case of machine learning (ML) applied to classification of retina conditions. High performance metrics achieved using ML has become common practice. However, in the medical domain, algorithmic decisions need to be sustained by explanations. We aim at building a support tool for ophthalmologists able to: i) explain algorithmic decision to the human agent by automatically extracting rules from the ML learned models; ii) include the ophthalmologist in the loop by formalising expert rules and including the expert knowledge in the argumentation machinery; iii) build safety cases by creating assurance argument patterns for each diagnosis. Methods: For the learning task, we used a dataset consisting of 699 OCT images: 126 Normal class, 210 with Diabetic Retinopathy (DR) and 363 with Age Related Macular Degeneration (AMD). The dataset contains patients from the Ophthalmology Department of the County Emergency Hospital of Cluj-Napoca. All ethical norms and procedures, including anonymisation, have been performed. We applied three machine learning algorithms: decision tree A. Groza (corresponding author) and L. Toderean Technical University of Cluj-Napoca, Cluj-Napoca, Romania Tel.: +40-264-401200 Fax: +40-264592 E-mail: Adrian.Groza@cs.utcluj.ro,Toderean.Io.Liana@utcluj.didatec.ro G. A. Muntean and S. D. Nicoara Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania Tel.: +40-264-597-256 Fax: +40-264-597-257 E-mail: georgemuntean99@elearn.umfcluj.ro, stalu@umfcluj.ro 2 Adrian Groza∗ et al. (DT), support vector machine (SVM) and artificial neural network (ANN). For each algorithm we automatically extract diagnosis rules. For formalising expert knowledge, we relied on the normative dataset [13]. For arguing between agents, we used the Jason multi-agent platform. We assume different knowledge base and reasoning capabilities for each agent. The agents have their own Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) images on which they apply a distinct machine learning algorithm. The learned model is used to extract diagnosis rules. With distinct learned rules, the agents engage in an argumentative process. The resolution of the debate outputs a diagnosis that is then explained to the ophthalmologist, by means of assurance cases. Results: For diagnosing the retina condition, our AI solution deals with the following three issues: First, the learned models are automatically translated into rules. These rules are then used to build an explanation by tracing the reasoning chain supporting the diagnosis. Hence, the proposed AI solution complies with the requirement that ”algorithmic decision should be explained to the human agent”. Second, the decision is not solely based on ML-algorithms. The proposed architecture includes expert knowledge. The diagnosis is taken based on exchanging arguments between ML-based algorithms and expert knowledge. The conflict resolution among arguments is verbalised, so that the ophthalmologist can supervise the diagnosis. Third, the assurance cases are generated to facilitate technical audit. The assurance cases structure the evidence among various safety goals such as: machine learning methodology, transparency, or data quality. For each dimension, the auditor can check the provided evidence against the current best practices or safety standards. Conclusion: We developed a multi-agent system for retina conditions in which algorithmic decisions are sustained by explanations. The proposed tool goes behind most software in medical domain that focuses only on performance metrics. Our approach helps the technical auditor to approve software in the medical domain. Interleaving knowledge extracted from ML-models with expert knowledge is a step towards balancing the benefits of ML with explainability, aiming at engineering reliable medical applications.

[1]  J. García-Feijóo,et al.  Normative database for separate inner retinal layers thickness using spectral domain optical coherence tomography in Caucasian population , 2017, PloS one.

[2]  Zhaolei Wang,et al.  Data Augmentation is More Important Than Model Architectures for Retinal Vessel Segmentation , 2019, ICIMH 2019.

[3]  M. Iqbal Saripan,et al.  Retinal Blood Vessel Segmentation by Using Matched Filtering and Fuzzy C-means Clustering with Integrated Level Set Method for Diabetic Retinopathy Assessment , 2018, Journal of Medical and Biological Engineering.

[4]  Chunyan Miao,et al.  Context-based and Explainable Decision Making with Argumentation , 2018, AAMAS.

[5]  Francesca Toni,et al.  Argumentation for Explainable Scheduling , 2019, AAAI.

[6]  Gaël Varoquaux,et al.  Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python , 2011, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[7]  Waldo Hasperué,et al.  The master algorithm: how the quest for the ultimate learning machine will remake our world , 2015 .

[8]  Farida Zehraoui,et al.  A new Transparent Ensemble Method based on Deep learning , 2019, KES.

[9]  Huamin Qu,et al.  RuleMatrix: Visualizing and Understanding Classifiers with Rules , 2018, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[10]  Amal El Fallah Seghrouchni,et al.  Jason Induction of Logical Decision Trees: A Learning Library and Its Application to Commitment , 2010, MICAI.

[11]  Elizabeth Sklar,et al.  Explainable Argumentation for Wellness Consultation , 2019, EXTRAAMAS@AAMAS.

[12]  Yike Guo,et al.  Explanations by arbitrated argumentative dispute , 2019, Expert Syst. Appl..

[13]  Amina Adadi,et al.  Peeking Inside the Black-Box: A Survey on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) , 2018, IEEE Access.

[14]  Maartje M. A. de Graaf,et al.  How People Explain Action (and Autonomous Intelligent Systems Should Too) , 2017, AAAI Fall Symposia.

[15]  N. Bressler,et al.  Retinal thickness in people with diabetes and minimal or no diabetic retinopathy: Heidelberg Spectralis optical coherence tomography. , 2012, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[16]  Gabriel Coscas,et al.  Heidelberg Spectralis Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography: Technical Aspects. , 2016, Developments in ophthalmology.

[17]  J. Duker,et al.  Normal macular thickness measurements in healthy eyes using Stratus optical coherence tomography. , 2006, Archives of ophthalmology.

[18]  M. Gillies,et al.  Normative Data for Retinal-Layer Thickness Maps Generated by Spectral-Domain OCT in a White Population. , 2018, Ophthalmology. Retina.

[19]  Radu Razvan Slavescu,et al.  Towards Balancing the Complexity of Convolutional Neural Network with the Role of Optical Coherence Tomography in Retinal Conditions , 2019, 2019 IEEE 15th International Conference on Intelligent Computer Communication and Processing (ICCP).

[20]  Peter Norvig,et al.  Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach , 1995 .

[21]  Richard Hawkins,et al.  A Pattern for Arguing the Assurance of Machine Learning in Medical Diagnosis Systems , 2019, SAFECOMP.

[22]  Dhanshree Thulkar,et al.  An Integrated System for Detection Exudates and Severity Quantification for Diabetic Macular Edema , 2020, Journal of Medical and Biological Engineering.

[23]  Jorge J. Gómez-Sanz,et al.  Programming Multi-Agent Systems , 2003, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[24]  Chih-Jen Lin,et al.  LIBSVM: A library for support vector machines , 2011, TIST.

[25]  Jung-Hwan Oh,et al.  Real Data Augmentation for Medical Image Classification , 2017, CVII-STENT/LABELS@MICCAI.

[26]  Tim Kelly,et al.  The Goal Structuring Notation – A Safety Argument Notation , 2004 .

[27]  E. Topol,et al.  A comparison of deep learning performance against health-care professionals in detecting diseases from medical imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2019, The Lancet. Digital health.