Explainable artificial intelligence (AI) is attracting much interest in medicine. Technically, the problem of explainability is as old as AI itself and classic AI represented comprehensible retraceable approaches. However, their weakness was in dealing with uncertainties of the real world. Through the introduction of probabilistic learning, applications became increasingly successful, but increasingly opaque. Explainable AI deals with the implementation of transparency and traceability of statistical black‐box machine learning methods, particularly deep learning (DL). We argue that there is a need to go beyond explainable AI. To reach a level of explainable medicine we need causability. In the same way that usability encompasses measurements for the quality of use, causability encompasses measurements for the quality of explanations. In this article, we provide some necessary definitions to discriminate between explainability and causability as well as a use‐case of DL interpretation and of human explanation in histopathology. The main contribution of this article is the notion of causability, which is differentiated from explainability in that causability is a property of a person, while explainability is a property of a systemThis article is categorized under: Fundamental Concepts of Data and Knowledge > Human Centricity and User Interaction

Machine learning (ML) is the fastest growing field in computer science, and health informatics is among the greatest challenges. The goal of ML is to develop algorithms which can learn and improve over time and can be used for predictions. Most ML researchers concentrate on automatic machine learning (aML), where great advances have been made, for example, in speech recognition, recommender systems, or autonomous vehicles. Automatic approaches greatly benefit from big data with many training sets. However, in the health domain, sometimes we are confronted with a small number of data sets or rare events, where aML-approaches suffer of insufficient training samples. Here interactive machine learning (iML) may be of help, having its roots in reinforcement learning, preference learning, and active learning. The term iML is not yet well used, so we define it as “algorithms that can interact with agents and can optimize their learning behavior through these interactions, where the agents can also be human.” This “human-in-the-loop” can be beneficial in solving computationally hard problems, e.g., subspace clustering, protein folding, or k-anonymization of health data, where human expertise can help to reduce an exponential search space through heuristic selection of samples. Therefore, what would otherwise be an NP-hard problem, reduces greatly in complexity through the input and the assistance of a human agent involved in the learning phase.

The most successful Machine Learning (ML) systems remain complex black boxes to end-users, and even experts are often unable to understand the rationale behind their decisions. The lack of transparency of such systems can have severe consequences or poor uses of limited valuable resources in medical diagnosis, financial decision-making, and in other high-stake domains. Therefore, the issue of ML explanation has experienced a surge in interest from the research community to application domains. While numerous explanation methods have been explored, there is a need for evaluations to quantify the quality of explanation methods to determine whether and to what extent the offered explainability achieves the defined objective, and compare available explanation methods and suggest the best explanation from the comparison for a specific task. This survey paper presents a comprehensive overview of methods proposed in the current literature for the evaluation of ML explanations. We identify properties of explainability from the review of definitions of explainability. The identified properties of explainability are used as objectives that evaluation metrics should achieve. The survey found that the quantitative metrics for both model-based and example-based explanations are primarily used to evaluate the parsimony/simplicity of interpretability, while the quantitative metrics for attribution-based explanations are primarily used to evaluate the soundness of fidelity of explainability. The survey also demonstrated that subjective measures, such as trust and confidence, have been embraced as the focal point for the human-centered evaluation of explainable systems. The paper concludes that the evaluation of ML explanations is a multidisciplinary research topic. It is also not possible to define an implementation of evaluation metrics, which can be applied to all explanation methods.

The human-computer interaction community aims to increase the awareness and acceptance of established methods among software practitioners. Indeed, awareness of the basic usability methods will drive an Information Society for all.

Due to popular successes (e.g., ChatGPT) Artificial Intelligence (AI) is on everyone's lips today. When advances in biotechnology are combined with advances in AI unprecedented new potential solutions become available. This can help with many global problems and contribute to important Sustainability Development Goals. Current examples include Food Security, Health and Well-being, Clean Water, Clean Energy, Responsible Consumption and Production, Climate Action, Life below Water, or protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss. AI is ubiquitous in the life sciences today. Topics include a wide range from machine learning and Big Data analytics, knowledge discovery and data mining, biomedical ontologies, knowledge-based reasoning, natural language processing, decision support and reasoning under uncertainty, temporal and spatial representation and inference, and methodological aspects of explainable AI (XAI) with applications of biotechnology. In this pre-Editorial paper, we provide an overview of open research issues and challenges for each of the topics addressed in this special issue. Potential authors can directly use this as a guideline for developing their paper.