Trustworthy Clinical Decision Support Using Meta-Predicates and Domain-Specific Languages
\textbf{Background:} Regulatory frameworks for AI in healthcare, including the EU AI Act and FDA guidance on AI/ML-based medical devices, require clinical decision support to demonstrate not only accuracy but auditability. Existing formal languages for clinical logic validate syntactic and structural correctness but not whether decision rules use epistemologically appropriate evidence. \textbf{Methods:} Drawing on design-by-contract principles, we introduce meta-predicates -- predicates about predicates -- for asserting epistemological constraints on clinical decision rules expressed in a DSL. An epistemological type system classifies annotations along four dimensions: purpose, knowledge domain, scale, and method of acquisition. Meta-predicates assert which evidence types are permissible in any given rule. The framework is instantiated in AnFiSA, an open-source platform for genetic variant curation, and demonstrated using the Brigham Genomics Medicine protocol on 5.6 million variants from the Genome in a Bottle benchmark. \textbf{Results:} Decision trees used in variant interpretation can be reformulated as unate cascades, enabling per-variant audit trails that identify which rule classified each variant and why. Meta-predicate validation catches epistemological errors before deployment, whether rules are human-written or AI-generated. The approach complements post-hoc methods such as LIME and SHAP: where explanation reveals what evidence was used after the fact, meta-predicates constrain what evidence may be used before deployment, while preserving human readability. \textbf{Conclusions:} Meta-predicate validation is a step toward demonstrating not only that decisions are accurate but that they rest on appropriate evidence in ways that can be independently audited. While demonstrated in genomics, the approach generalises to any domain requiring auditable decision logic.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Elucidating Discrepancy in Explanations of Predictive Models Developed using EMR
The lack of transparency and explainability hinders the clinical adoption of Machine learning (ML) algorithms. While explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) methods have been proposed, little research has focused on th…
Clinical KnowledgeExplainable artificial intelligenceExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Uncertainty-Aware Deep Ensembles for Reliable and Explainable Predictions of Clinical Time Series
Deep learning-based support systems have demonstrated encouraging results in numerous clinical applications involving the processing of time series data. While such systems often are very accurate, they have no inherent …
Time SeriesTime Series AnalysisTT-XAI: Trustworthy Clinical Text Explanations via Keyword Distillation and LLM Reasoning
Clinical language models often struggle to provide trustworthy predictions and explanations when applied to lengthy, unstructured electronic health records (EHRs). This work introduces TT-XAI, a lightweight and effective…
SDoH-Aware Narrative Anchoring Bias in Medical LLMs for Trustworthy Clinical Decision Support
Medical large language models are often judged by how many clinical questions they answer correctly. That view is useful, but it misses a practical risk. A model may know the right answer and still change its response wh…
Question AnsweringPosition: Multi-Agent Algorithmic Care Systems Demand Contestability for Trustworthy AI
Multi-agent systems (MAS) are increasingly used in healthcare to support complex decision-making through collaboration among specialized agents. Because these systems act as collective decision-makers, they raise challen…