Explanations of Machine Learning Models in Repeated Nested Cross-Validation: An Application in Age Prediction Using Brain Complexity Features
Source abstract
Abstract
SHAP (Shapley additive explanations) is a framework for explainable AI that makes explanations locally and globally. In this work, we propose a general method to obtain representative SHAP values within a repeated nested cross-validation procedure and separately for the training and test sets of the different cross-validation rounds to assess the real generalization abilities of the explanations. We applied this method to predict individual age using brain complexity features extracted from MRI scans of 159 healthy subjects. In particular, we used four implementations of the fractal dimension (FD) of the cerebral cortex—a measurement of brain complexity. Representative SHAP values highlighted that the most recent implementation of the FD had the highest impact over the others and was among the top-ranking features for predicting age. SHAP rankings were not the same in the training and test sets, but the top-ranking features were consistent. In conclusion, we propose a method—and share all the source code—that allows a rigorous assessment of the SHAP explanations of a trained model in a repeated nested cross-validation setting.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) · Machine Learning in Healthcare · Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Electrical, Electronic, and Information Engineering “Guglielmo Marconi”, University of Bologna, 47522 Cesena, Italy
Alma Mater Research Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence, 40136 Bologna, Italy
References (73)
Show source-provided references
1. Explanation in artificial intelligence: Insights from the social sciences10.1016/j.artint.2018.07.007 ↗
2. Sex and gender differences and biases in artificial intelligence for biomedicine and healthcare10.1038/s41746-020-0288-5 ↗
3. Peeking Inside the Black-Box: A Survey on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2870052 ↗
4. Bach, S., Binder, A., Montavon, G., Klauschen, F., Müller, K.R., and Samek, W. (2015). On Pixel-Wise Explanations for Non-Linear Classifier Decisions by Layer-Wise Relevance Propagation. PLoS ONE, 10.10.1371/journal.pone.0130140 ↗
5. Analysis of regression in game theory approach10.1002/asmb.446 ↗
6. Explaining Prediction Models and Individual Predictions with Feature Contributions10.1007/s10115-013-0679-x ↗
7. Ribeiro, M.T., Singh, S., and Guestrin, C. (2016, January 13–17). “Why Should I Trust You?”: Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier. Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD’16), San Francisco, CA, USA.10.1145/2939672.2939778 ↗
8. Shrikumar, A., Greenside, P., and Kundaje, A. (2019). Learning Important Features Through Propagating Activation Differences. arXiv.
9. Lundberg, S.M., and Lee, S.I. (2017). A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions. arXiv.
10. 17. A Value for n-Person Games
11. Explainable Deep Learning for Personalized Age Prediction with Brain Morphology10.3389/fnins.2021.674055 ↗
12. Explaining anomalies detected by autoencoders using Shapley Additive Explanations10.1016/j.eswa.2021.115736 ↗
13. Sabuncu, M.R. (2020). Intelligence plays dice: Stochasticity is essential for machine learning. arXiv.
14. Challenges to the Reproducibility of Machine Learning Models in Health Care10.1001/jama.2019.20866 ↗
15. AI in health and medicine10.1038/s41591-021-01614-0 ↗
16. Matters arising Transparency and reproducibility in artificial intelligence10.1038/s41586-020-2766-y ↗
17. Transparency in medical AI10.1038/s41591-020-01147-y ↗
18. DOME: Recommendations for supervised machine learning validation in biology10.1038/s41592-021-01205-4 ↗
19. Amir, S., van de Meent, J., and Wallace, B.C. (2021). On the Impact of Random Seeds on the Fairness of Clinical Classifiers. arXiv.10.18653/v1/2021.naacl-main.299 ↗
20. Wang, Z., Zhu, Y., Wang, F., Wang, P., Shen, C., and Liu, J. (2019, January 12–15). Performance of Repeated Cross Validation for Machine Learning Models in Building Energy Analysis. Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (ISHVAC 2019), Harbin, China.
21. Estimating classification error rate: Repeated cross-validation, repeated hold-out and bootstrap10.1016/j.csda.2009.04.009 ↗
22. A comparative study of ordinary cross-validation, v-fold cross-validation and the repeated learning-testing methods10.1093/biomet/76.3.503 ↗
23. Vanwinckelen, G., and Blockeel, H. (2022, May 29). On Estimating Model Accuracy with Repeated Cross-Validation. Available online: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjc5dre_pf1AhUtNOwKHUpQClcQFnoECBEQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Flirias.kuleuven.be%2Fretrieve%2F186558%2F&usg=AOvVaw3sAhjDtQ0B2NwGcalWuwpk.
24. Medical big data: Promise and challenges10.23876/j.krcp.2017.36.1.3 ↗
25. Mueller, A., and Guido, S. (2017). Introduction to machine Learning with Python: A guide for Data Scientists, O’Reilly Media.
26. Using Shapley additive explanations to interpret extreme gradient boosting predictions of grassland degradation in Xilingol, China10.5194/gmd-14-1493-2021 ↗
27. Prediction of the development of acute kidney injury following cardiac surgery by machine learning10.1186/s13054-020-03179-9 ↗
28. Explainable heat-related mortality with random forest and SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) models10.1016/j.scs.2022.103677 ↗
29. Prediction of Extubation Failure for Intensive Care Unit Patients Using Light Gradient Boosting Machine10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2946980 ↗
30. Interpretation of Compound Activity Predictions from Complex Machine Learning Models Using Local Approximations and Shapley Values10.1021/acs.jmedchem.9b01101 ↗
31. Toward safer highways, application of XGBoost and SHAP for real-time accident detection and feature analysis10.1016/j.aap.2019.105405 ↗
32. An Interpretable Prediction Model for Identifying N7-Methylguanosine Sites Based on XGBoost and SHAP10.1016/j.omtn.2020.08.022 ↗
33. Interpretable XGBoost-SHAP Machine-Learning Model for Shear Strength Prediction of Squat RC Walls10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0003115 ↗
34. Deb, D., and Smith, R.M. (2021). Application of Random Forest and SHAP Tree Explainer in Exploring Spatial (In)Justice to Aid Urban Planning. ISPRS Int. J.-Geo-Inf., 10.10.3390/ijgi10090629 ↗
35. Interpretable prediction of 3-year all-cause mortality in patients with heart failure caused by coronary heart disease based on machine learning and SHAP10.1016/j.compbiomed.2021.104813 ↗
36. A multilayer multimodal detection and prediction model based on explainable artificial intelligence for Alzheimer’s disease
37. Lombardi, A., Diacono, D., Amoroso, N., Biecek, P., Monaco, A., Bellantuono, L., Pantaleo, E., Logroscino, G., Blasi, R., and Tangaro, S. (2022). A robust framework to investigate the reliability and stability of explainable artificial intelligence markers of Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer’s Disease. Res. Sq.10.21203/rs.3.rs-1550479/v1 ↗
38. Lundberg, S.M. (2022, May 29). SHAP Explainer. Available online: https://shap.readthedocs.io/en/latest/example_notebooks/tabular_examples/tree_based_models/Python%20Version%20of%20Tree%20SHAP.html#Python-TreeExplainer.
39. Ten Years of BrainAGE as a Neuroimaging Biomarker of Brain Aging: What Insights Have We Gained?10.3389/fneur.2019.00789 ↗
40. Toward a more reliable characterization of fractal properties of the cerebral cortex of healthy subjects during the lifespan10.1038/s41598-020-73961-w ↗
41. Cortical complexity as a measure of age-related brain atrophy10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.04.029 ↗
42. Effect of data leakage in brain MRI classification using 2D convolutional neural networks10.1038/s41598-021-01681-w ↗
43. The NKI-Rockland Sample: A Model for Accelerating the Pace of Discovery Science in Psychiatry10.3389/fnins.2012.00152 ↗
44. An open science resource for establishing reliability and reproducibility in functional connectomics10.1038/sdata.2014.49 ↗
45. A probabilistic atlas and reference system for the human brain: International Consortium for Brain Mapping (ICBM)10.1098/rstb.2001.0915 ↗
46. FreeSurfer10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.01.021 ↗
47. Regional and progressive thinning of the cortical ribbon in Huntington’s disease10.1212/WNL.58.5.695 ↗
48. Reliability of MRI-derived measurements of human cerebral cortical thickness: The effects of field strength, scanner upgrade and manufacturer10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.02.051 ↗
49. A novel quantitative cross-validation of different cortical surface reconstruction algorithms using MRI phantom10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.12.044 ↗
50. Hemispherically-Unified Surface Maps of Human Cerebral Cortex: Reliability and Hemispheric Asymmetries10.1371/journal.pone.0045582 ↗
51. Voxel-Based Statistical Analysis of Fractional Anisotropy and Mean Diffusivity in Patients with Unilateral Temporal Lobe Epilepsy of Unknown Cause10.1111/j.1552-6569.2011.00673.x ↗
52. Computation of local fractal dimension values of the human cerebral cortex10.4236/am.2014.512166 ↗
53. Automated manifold surgery: Constructing geometrically accurate and topologically correct models of the human cerebral cortex10.1109/42.906426 ↗
54. A Surface-Based Approach to Quantify Local Cortical Gyrification10.1109/TMI.2007.903576 ↗
55. Is the brain cortex a fractal?10.1016/S1053-8119(03)00380-X ↗
56. Robust estimation of fractal measures for characterizing the structural complexity of the human brain: Optimization and reproducibility10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.06.072 ↗
57. Structural complexity of the cerebellum and cerebral cortex is reduced in spinocerebellar ataxia type 210.1111/jon.12534 ↗
58. Fractal dimension of cerebral white matter: A consistent feature for prediction of the cognitive performance in patients with small vessel disease and mild cognitive impairment10.1016/j.nicl.2019.101990 ↗
59. Fractal Analysis of MRI Data at 7 T: How Much Complex Is the Cerebral Cortex?10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3077370 ↗
60. Longitudinal study of the effect of a 5-year exercise intervention on structural brain complexity in older adults. A Generation 100 substudy10.1016/j.neuroimage.2022.119226 ↗
61. Chen, T., and Guestrin, C. (2016, January 13–17). XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System. Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD’16), San Francisco, CA, USA.10.1145/2939672.2939785 ↗
62. From local explanations to global understanding with explainable AI for trees10.1038/s42256-019-0138-9 ↗
63. Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., and Friedman, J.H. (2013). The Elements of Statistical Learning Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction, Springer.
64. Lundberg, S.M. (2022, May 29). SHAP Beeswarm Plot. Available online: https://shap.readthedocs.io/en/latest/example_notebooks/api_examples/plots/beeswarm.html#A-simple-beeswarm-summary-plot.
65. Lundberg, S.M. (2022, May 29). SHAP Bar Plot. Available online: https://shap.readthedocs.io/en/latest/example_notebooks/api_examples/plots/bar.html.
66. Efficient and Explainable Risk Assessments for Imminent Dementia in an Aging Cohort Study10.1109/JBHI.2021.3059563 ↗
67. Machine learning for dose-volume histogram based clinical decision-making support system in radiation therapy plans for brain tumors
68. Computed tomography radiomics for the prediction of thymic epithelial tumor histology, TNM stage and myasthenia gravis
69. Fractal dimension analysis of the cortical ribbon in mild Alzheimer’s disease10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.06.050 ↗
70. Monti, R.P., Gibberd, A., Roy, S., Nunes, M., Lorenz, R., Leech, R., Ogawa, T., Kawanabe, M., and Hyvärinen, A. (2020). Interpretable brain age prediction using linear latent variable models of functional connectivity. PLoS ONE, 15.10.1371/journal.pone.0232296 ↗
71. Al Zoubi, O., Ki Wong, C., Kuplicki, R.T., Yeh, H.w., Mayeli, A., Refai, H., Paulus, M., and Bodurka, J. (2018). Predicting Age From Brain EEG Signals—A Machine Learning Approach. Front. Aging Neurosci., 10.10.3389/fnagi.2018.00184 ↗
72. A survey on deep learning-based non-invasive brain signals: Recent advances and new frontiers10.1088/1741-2552/abc902 ↗
73. A dynamic graph convolutional neural network framework reveals new insights into connectome dysfunctions in ADHD10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.118774 ↗