Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
Assessment of bias in scoring of AI-based radiotherapy segmentation and planning studies using modified TRIPOD and PROBAST guidelines as an example
10
Zitationen
7
Autoren
2024
Jahr
Abstract
Our study showed low reliability scores with the adapted TRIPOD and PROBAST checklists. Although such checklists have shown great value during development and reporting, this raises concerns about the applicability of such checklists to objectively score scientific articles for AI applications. When developing or revising guidelines, it is essential to consider their applicability to score articles without introducing bias.
Ähnliche Arbeiten
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI
2019 · 8.534 Zit.
Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead
2019 · 8.423 Zit.
High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence
2018 · 7.917 Zit.
Proceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence
2005 · 5.781 Zit.
Peeking Inside the Black-Box: A Survey on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
2018 · 5.582 Zit.
Autoren
Institutionen
- Radboud University Nijmegen(NL)
- Catharina Ziekenhuis(NL)
- Eindhoven University of Technology(NL)
- Université Paris Cité(FR)
- Hôpital Européen Georges-Pompidou(FR)
- European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer(BE)
- Université Libre de Bruxelles(BE)
- Institut Jules Bordet(BE)
- Maastricht University(NL)
- Maastro Clinic(NL)
- University of Zurich(CH)
- University Hospital of Zurich(CH)