Samuel, A. L. in Computer Games I (ed. Levy D.N.L.) 366–400 (Springer New York, 1988).
Fletcher, K. H. Matter with a mind; a neurological research robot. Research 4, 305–307 (1951).
Kononenko, I. Machine learning for medical diagnosis: history, state of the art and perspective. Artif. Intell. Med. 23, 89–109 (2001).
Kugelman, J. et al. Automatic choroidal segmentation in OCT images using supervised deep learning methods. Sci. Rep. 9, 13298 (2019).
Ronneberger, O., Fischer, P. & Brox, T. U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentation 234–241 (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2015).
LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y. & Hinton, G. Deep learning. Nature 521, 436–444 (2015).
Müller, P. L. et al. in High Resolution Imaging in Microscopy and Ophthalmology: New Frontiers in Biomedical Optics (ed. Bille, J. F.) 87–106 (Springer International Publishing, 2019).
Huang, D. et al. Optical coherence tomography. Science 254, 1178–1181 (1991).
Mrejen, S. & Spaide, R. F. Optical coherence tomography: imaging of the choroid and beyond. Surv. Ophthalmol. 58, 387–429 (2013).
Staurenghi, G., Sadda, S., Chakravarthy, U. & Spaide, R. F. Proposed lexicon for anatomic landmarks in normal posterior segment spectral-domain optical coherence tomography. Ophthalmology 121, 1572–1578 (2014).
von der Emde, L. et al. Artificial intelligence for morphology-based function prediction in neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Sci. Rep. 9, 11132 (2019).
Lee, C. S., Baughman, D. M. & Lee, A. Y. Deep learning is effective for classifying normal versus age-related macular degeneration OCT images. Ophthalmol. Retina 1, 322–327 (2017).
Motozawa, N. et al. Optical coherence tomography-based deep-learning models for classifying normal and age-related macular degeneration and exudative and non-exudative age-related macular degeneration changes. Ophthalmol. Ther. 8, 527–539 (2019).
Keel, S. et al. Feasibility and patient acceptability of a novel artificial intelligence-based screening model for diabetic retinopathy at endocrinology outpatient services: a pilot study. Sci. Rep. 8, 4330 (2018).
Bellemo, V. et al. Artificial intelligence screening for diabetic retinopathy: the real-world emerging application. Curr. Diab. Rep. 19, 72 (2019).
Grzybowski, A. et al. Artificial intelligence for diabetic retinopathy screening: a review. Eye 34, 451–460 (2020).
Gulshan, V. et al. Development and validation of a deep learning algorithm for detection of diabetic retinopathy in retinal fundus photographs. JAMA 316, 2402–2410 (2016).
Arcadu, F. et al. Deep learning algorithm predicts diabetic retinopathy progression in individual patients. NPJ Digit. Med. 2, 92 (2019).
Waldstein, S. M. et al. Evaluating the impact of vitreomacular adhesion on anti-VEGF therapy for retinal vein occlusion using machine learning. Sci. Rep. 7, 2928 (2017).
Schlegl, T. et al. Fully automated detection and quantification of macular fluid in OCT using deep learning. Ophthalmology 125, 549–558 (2018).
Zutis, K. et al. Towards automatic detection of abnormal retinal capillaries in ultra-widefield-of-view retinal angiographic exams. In Annu. Int. Conf. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. Vol. 2013, 7372–7375 (Osaka, Japan, 2013).
Müller, P. L. et al. Prediction of function in ABCA4-related retinopathy using Ensemble machine learning. J. Clin. Med. 9, 2428 (2020).
De Fauw, J. et al. Clinically applicable deep learning for diagnosis and referral in retinal disease. Nat. Med. 24, 1342–1350 (2018).
Maloca, P. M. et al. Validation of automated artificial intelligence segmentation of optical coherence tomography images. PLoS ONE 14, e0220063 (2019).
Quellec, G. et al. Feasibility of support vector machine learning in age-related macular degeneration using small sample yielding sparse optical coherence tomography data. Acta Ophthalmol. 97, e719–e728 (2019).
Darcy, A. M., Louie, A. K. & Roberts, L. W. Machine learning and the profession of medicine. JAMA 315, 551–552 (2016).
Ching, T. et al. Opportunities and obstacles for deep learning in biology and medicine. J. R. Soc. Interface 15, 1–47 (2018).
Topol, E. J. High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence. Nat. Med. 25, 44–56 (2019).
King, B. F. Artificial intelligence and radiology: what will the future hold? J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 15, 501–503 (2018).
Coiera, E. The fate of medicine in the time of AI. Lancet 392, 2331–2332 (2018).
Jha, S. & Topol, E. J. Adapting to artificial intelligence: radiologists and pathologists as information specialists. JAMA 316, 2353–2354 (2016).
Makridakis, S. The forthcoming artificial intelligence (AI) revolution: its impact on society and firms. Futures 90, 46–60 (2017).
Silver, D. et al. Mastering the game of Go with deep neural networks and tree search. Nature 529, 484–489 (2016).
Chan, S. & Siegel, E. L. Will machine learning end the viability of radiology as a thriving medical specialty? Br. J. Radiol. 92, 20180416 (2019).
Silver, D. et al. Mastering the game of Go without human knowledge. Nature 550, 354–359 (2017).
Ferrucci, D., Levas, A., Bagchi, S., Gondek, D. & Mueller, E. T. Watson: beyond jeopardy! Artif. Intell. 199–200, 93–105 (2013).
Liu, X. et al. A comparison of deep learning performance against health-care professionals in detecting diseases from medical imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Digit. Health 1, e271–e297 (2019).
Bouwmeester, W. et al. Reporting and methods in clinical prediction research: a systematic review. PLoS Med. 9, 1–12 (2012).
Collins, G. S. & Moons, K. G. M. Reporting of artificial intelligence prediction models. Lancet 393, 1577–1579 (2019).
Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., Moher, D. & CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 340, c332 (2010).
Calvert, M. et al. Guidelines for inclusion of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trial protocols: the SPIRIT-PRO Extension. JAMA 319, 483–494 (2018).
CONSORT-AI and SPIRIT-AI Steering Group. Reporting guidelines for clinical trials evaluating artificial intelligence interventions are needed. Nat. Med. 25, 1467–1468 (2019).
Liu, X., Faes, L., Calvert, M. J., Denniston, A. K. & CONSORT/SPIRIT-AI Extension Group. Extension of the CONSORT and SPIRIT statements. Lancet 394, 1225 (2019).
Kaiser, T. M. & Burger, P. B. Error tolerance of machine learning algorithms across contemporary biological targets. Molecules 24, https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules24112115 (2019).
Beam, A. L., Manrai, A. K. & Ghassemi, M. Challenges to the reproducibility of machine learning models in health care. JAMA 323, 305–306 (2020).
Ting, D. S. W. et al. Artificial intelligence and deep learning in ophthalmology. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 103, 167–175 (2019).
Schmidhuber, J. Deep learning in neural networks: an overview. Neural Netw. 61, 85–117 (2015).
Castelvecchi, D. Can we open the black box of AI? Nature 538, 20–23 (2016).
Guidotti, R. et al. A survey of methods for explaining black box models. ACM Comput. Surv. 51, 1–42 (2019).
Lipton, Z. C. The mythos of model interpretability. Queue 16, 31–57 (2018).
Gunning, D. & Aha, D. DARPA’s explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) program. AI Mag. 40, 44–58 (2019).
Holzinger, A., Kieseberg, P., Weippl, E. & Tjoa, A. M. Current advances, trends and challenges of machine learning and knowledge extraction: from machine learning to explainable AI. In Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction. CD-MAKE 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol 11015, 1–8 (eds. Holzinger, A. et al.) (Springer, Cham., 2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99740-7_1.
Barredo Arrieta, A. et al. Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI. Inf. Fusion 58, 82–115 (2020).
Montavon, G., Samek, W. & Müller, K.-R. Methods for interpreting and understanding deep neural networks. Digit. Signal Process. 73, 1–15 (2018).
Holzinger, A., Langs, G., Denk, H., Zatloukal, K. & Müller, H. Causability and explainability of artificial intelligence in medicine. WIREs Data Min. Knowl. Discov. 9, e1312. https://doi.org/10.1002/widm.1312 (2019).
Holzinger, A., Carrington, A. & Müller, H. Measuring the quality of explanations: The System Causability Scale (SCS). KI K.ünstliche Intell. 34, 193–198 (2020).
Ribeiro, M. T., Singh, S. & Guestrin, C. Why Should I. Trust You? In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining 1135–1144 (ACM, 2016).
Lakkaraju, H., Kamar, E., Caruana, R. & Leskovec, J. Interpretable & explorable approximations of black box models. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.01154 (2017).
Selvaraju, R. R. et al. Grad-CAM: visual explanations from deep networks via gradient-based localization. Int. J. Comput. Vis. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11263-019-01228-7 (2016).
Wickstrom, K., Kampffmeyer, M. & Jenssen, R. Uncertainty modeling and interpretability in convolutional neural networks for polyp segmentation. In 2018 IEEE 28th International Workshop on Machine Learning for Signal Processing (MLSP) 1–6 (IEEE, 2018).
Vinogradova, K., Dibrov, A. & Myers, G. Towards Interpretable semantic segmentation via gradient-weighted class activation mapping. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.11434 (2020).
Bach, S. et al. On pixel-wise explanations for non-linear classifier decisions by layer-wise relevance propagation. PLoS ONE 10, e0130140 (2015).
Seegerer, P. et al. Interpretable deep neural network to predict estrogen receptor status from haematoxylin-eosin images. in Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning for Digital Pathology (eds. Holzinger, A. et al.) 16–37 (Springer, Cham, 2020).
Montavon, G., Lapuschkin, S., Binder, A., Samek, W. & Müller, K.-R. Explaining nonlinear classification decisions with deep Taylor decomposition. Pattern Recognit. 65, 211–222 (2017).
Kim, B. et al. Interpretability Beyond Feature Attribution: Quantitative Testing with Concept Activation Vectors (TCAV). in Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, Vol. 80 (eds Jennifer, D. & Andreas, K.) 2668–2677 (PMLR, Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 2018).
Moussa, M. et al. Grading of macular perfusion in retinal vein occlusion using en-face swept-source optical coherence tomography angiography: a retrospective observational case series. BMC Ophthalmol. 19, 127 (2019).
Swanson, E. A. & Fujimoto, J. G. The ecosystem that powered the translation of OCT from fundamental research to clinical and commercial impact [Invited]. Biomed. Opt. Express 8, 1638 (2017).
Holz, F. G. et al. Multi-country real-life experience of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy for wet age-related macular degeneration. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 99, 220–226 (2015).
Alshareef, R. A. et al. Segmentation errors in macular ganglion cell analysis as determined by optical coherence tomography in eyes with macular pathology. Int. J. Retin. Vitr. 3, 25 (2017).
Al-Sheikh, M., Ghasemi Falavarjani, K., Akil, H. & Sadda, S. R. Impact of image quality on OCT angiography based quantitative measurements. Int. J. Retina Vitreous 3, 13 (2017).
Sadda, S. R. et al. Errors in retinal thickness measurements obtained by optical coherence tomography. Ophthalmology 113, 285–293 (2006).
Simonyan, K. & Zisserman, A. Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition. CoRR abs/1409.1556 (2015).
Sinz, F. H., Pitkow, X., Reimer, J., Bethge, M. & Tolias, A. S. Engineering a less artificial intelligence. Neuron 103, 967–979 (2019).
Zador, A. M. A critique of pure learning and what artificial neural networks can learn from animal brains. Nat. Commun. 10, 3770 (2019).
Tajmir, S. H. et al. Artificial intelligence-assisted interpretation of bone age radiographs improves accuracy and decreases variability. Skelet. Radio. 48, 275–283 (2019).
Kellner-Weldon, F. et al. Comparison of perioperative automated versus manual two-dimensional tumor analysis in glioblastoma patients. Eur. J. Radiol. 95, 75–81 (2017).
Ma, Z., Turrigiano, G. G., Wessel, R. & Hengen, K. B. Cortical circuit dynamics are homeostatically tuned to criticality in vivo. Neuron 104, 655–664.e4 (2019).
Shibayama, S. & Wang, J. Measuring originality in science. Scientometrics 122, 409–427 (2020).
Dirk, L. A measure of originality. Soc. Stud. Sci. 29, 765–776 (1999).
Hägele, M. et al. Resolving challenges in deep learning-based analyses of histopathological images using explanation methods. Sci. Rep. 10, 6423 (2020).
Panwar, H. et al. A deep learning and grad-CAM based color visualization approach for fast detection of COVID-19 cases using chest X-ray and CT-Scan images. Chaos Solitons Fractals 140, 110190 (2020).
Anger, E. M. et al. Ultrahigh resolution optical coherence tomography of the monkey fovea. Identification of retinal sublayers by correlation with semithin histology sections. Exp. Eye Res. 78, 1117–1125 (2004).
Glorot, X. & Bengio, Y. Understanding the difficulty of training deep feedforward neural networks. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 9, 249–256 (2010).
Kingma, D. P. & Ba, J. Adam: a method for stochastic optimization CoRR abs/1412.6980 (2015).
Litjens, G. et al. A survey on deep learning in medical image analysis. Med. Image Anal. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2017.07.005 (2017).
Kosub, S. A note on the triangle inequality for the Jaccard distance arXiv:1612.02696 (2016).
Borg, I. & Groenen, P. Modern Multidimensional Scaling (Springer New York, 1997).
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (2019).
Fay, M. P. & Shaw, P. A. Exact and asymptotic weighted logrank tests for interval censored data: the interval R package. J. Stat. Softw. 36 (2010).
Maloca, M. P. et al. Unraveling the deep learning gearbox in optical coherence tomography image segmentation towards explainable artificial intelligence. Code/software v1.0. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4380269 (2020).