The evaluation of interactive machine learning systems remains a difficult task. These systems learn from and adapt to the human, but at the same time, the human receives feedback and adapts to the system. Getting a clear understanding of these subtle mechanisms of co-operation and co-adaptation is challenging. In this chapter, we report on our experience in designing and evaluating various interactive machine learning applications from different domains. We argue for coupling two types of validation: algorithm-centered analysis, to study the computational behaviour of the system; and human-centered evaluation, to observe the utility and effectiveness of the application for end-users. We use a visual analytics application for guided search, built using an interactive evolutionary approach, as an exemplar of our work. Our observation is that human-centered design and evaluation complement algorithmic analysis, and can play an important role in addressing the "black-box" effect of machine learning. Finally, we discuss research opportunities that require human-computer interaction methodologies, in order to support both the visible and hidden roles that humans play in interactive machine learning.
In total, for the systems we reviewed, there were nine papers with case studies and usage scenarios @cite_12 @cite_26 @cite_16 @cite_31 @cite_19 @cite_13 @cite_47 @cite_30 @cite_33 , ten user studies @cite_18 @cite_20 @cite_41 @cite_6 @cite_25 @cite_14 @cite_19 @cite_5 @cite_42 @cite_47 and two observational studies @cite_10 @cite_49 , in addition to surveys, questionnaires and interviews (seven papers). Although a number of papers included some form of a controlled user study, it was however acknowledged that this type of evaluation is generally difficult to conduct due to the various potential confounding factors such as previous knowledge @cite_47 . Indeed, evaluating accuracy of an iML system is not always possible as ground truth does not always exist @cite_18 .
@cite_30 @cite_41 @cite_42 @cite_5 @cite_10 @cite_20 @cite_18 @cite_31 @cite_49 @cite_26 @cite_6 @cite_19 @cite_16 @cite_25 @cite_12 @cite_14 @cite_33 @cite_47 @cite_13
1808652302 2079370125 2122778642 2017562693
Objective To summarize literature describing approaches aimed at automatically identifying patients with a common phenotype. @PARASPLIT Materials and methods We performed a review of studies describing systems or reporting techniques developed for identifying cohorts of patients with specific phenotypes. Every full text article published in (1) Journal of American Medical Informatics Association , (2) Journal of Biomedical Informatics , (3) Proceedings of the Annual American Medical Informatics Association Symposium , and (4) Proceedings of Clinical Research Informatics Conference within the past 3 years was assessed for inclusion in the review. Only articles using automated techniques were included. @PARASPLIT Results Ninety-seven articles met our inclusion criteria. Forty-six used natural language processing (NLP)-based techniques, 24 described rule-based systems, 41 used statistical analyses, data mining, or machine learning techniques, while 22 described hybrid systems. Nine articles described the architecture of large-scale systems developed for determining cohort eligibility of patients. @PARASPLIT Discussion We observe that there is a rise in the number of studies associated with cohort identification using electronic medical records. Statistical analyses or machine learning, followed by NLP techniques, are gaining popularity over the years in comparison with rule-based systems. @PARASPLIT Conclusions There are a variety of approaches for classifying patients into a particular phenotype. Different techniques and data sources are used, and good performance is reported on datasets at respective institutions. However, no system makes comprehensive use of electronic medical records addressing all of their known weaknesses. Objectives: Evidence-based medicine depends on the timely synthesis of research findings. An important source of synthesized evidence resides in systematic reviews. However, a bottleneck in review production involves dual screening of citations with titles and abstracts to find eligible studies. For this research, we tested the effect of various kinds of textual information (features) on performance of a machine learning classifier. Based on our findings, we propose an automated system to reduce screeing burden, as well as offer quality assurance. Methods: We built a database of citations from 5 systematic reviews that varied with respect to domain, topic, and sponsor. Consensus judgments regarding eligibility were inferred from published reports. We extracted 5 feature sets from citations: alphabetic, alphanumeric +, indexing, features mapped to concepts in systematic reviews, and topic models. To simulate a two-person team, we divided the data into random halves. We optimized the parameters of a Bayesian classifier, then trained and tested models on alternate data halves. Overall, we conducted 50 independent tests. Results: All tests of summary performance (mean F3) surpassed the corresponding baseline, P<0.0001. The ranks for mean F3, precision, and classification error were statistically different across feature sets averaged over reviews; P-values for Friedman's test were .045, .002, and .002, respectively. Differences in ranks for mean recall were not statistically significant. Alphanumeric+ features were associated with best performance; mean reduction in screening burden for this feature type ranged from 88 to 98 for the second pass through citations and from 38 to 48 overall. Conclusions: A computer-assisted, decision support system based on our methods could substantially reduce the burden of screening citations for systematic review teams and solo reviewers. Additionally, such a system could deliver quality assurance both by confirming concordant decisions and by naming studies associated with discordant decisions for further consideration. © 2014 When we write or prepare to write a research paper, we always have appropriate references in mind. However, there are most likely references we have missed and should have been read and cited. As such a good citation recommendation system would not only improve our paper but, overall, the efficiency and quality of literature search. Usually, a citation's context contains explicit words explaining the citation. Using this, we propose a method that "translates" research papers into references. By considering the citations and their contexts from existing papers as parallel data written in two different "languages", we adopt the translation model to create a relationship between these two "vocabularies". Experiments on both CiteSeer and CiteULike dataset show that our approach outperforms other baseline methods and increase the precision, recall and f-measure by at least 5 to 10 , respectively. In addition, our approach runs much faster in the both training and recommending stage, which proves the effectiveness and the scalability of our work. In the past several years studies have started to appear comparing the accuracies of various science mapping approaches. These studies primarily compare the cluster solutions resulting from different similarity approaches, and give varying results. In this study we compare the accuracies of cluster solutions of a large corpus of 2,153,769 recent articles from the biomedical literature (2004–2008) using four similarity approaches: co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, direct citation, and a bibliographic coupling-based citation-text hybrid approach. Each of the four approaches can be considered a way to represent the research front in biomedicine, and each is able to successfully cluster over 92p of the corpus. Accuracies are compared using two metrics—within-cluster textual coherence as defined by the Jensen-Shannon divergence, and a concentration measure based on the grant-to-article linkages indexed in MEDLINE. Of the three pure citation-based approaches, bibliographic coupling slightly outperforms co-citation analysis using both accuracy measures; direct citation is the least accurate mapping approach by far. The hybrid approach improves upon the bibliographic coupling results in all respects. We consider the results of this study to be robust given the very large size of the corpus, and the specificity of the accuracy measures used. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.