mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Use of What-if Scenarios to Help Explain Artificial Intelligence Models for Neonatal Health

arXiv 2410.09635 ↗First posted 12 Oct 2024cs.LG cs.AIcited by 5

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Early detection of intrapartum risks enables timely interventions to prevent or mitigate adverse labor outcomes such as cerebral palsy. However, accurate automated systems to support clinical decision-making during delivery are currently lacking. To address this gap, we propose Artificial Intelligence for Modeling and Explaining Neonatal Health (AIMEN), a deep learning framework that predicts adverse labor outcomes from maternal, fetal, obstetrical, and intrapartum factors while providing interpretable reasoning behind its predictions. AIMEN reveals how specific modifications to input variables could alter predicted outcomes, enhancing clinical insight. To address class imbalance and limited sample size, AIMEN employs Conditional Tabular GAN (CTGAN) for data augmentation. This process includes synthetic data generation, and we investigate in detail properties such as relaxing feature bounds for a subset of training points to explore slightly out-of-range physiological values, and applying silhouette-score-based filtering to increase the separability of synthetic samples. AIMEN uses an ensemble of fully connected neural networks for classification and outperforms state-of-the-art models such as XGBoost, TabNet, DANet, and LightGBM, achieving an average F1 score of 0.784 in predicting high-risk deliveries. Moreover, AIMEN generates counterfactual explanations that identify actionable changes involving only two to three attributes on average. Resources: https://github.com/ab9mamun/AIMEN.

Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 71 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Oct 2024.

Builds on

17 of 71 references.

References · 17

  1. 2015U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentationcited by 19,604
  2. 2014Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examplescited by 7,287
  3. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
  4. 2017mixup: Beyond Empirical Risk Minimizationcited by 5,155
  5. 2016XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting Systemcited by 5,120
  6. 2017Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learningcited by 1,400
  7. 2017Virtual Adversarial Training: A Regularization Method for Supervised and Semi-Supervised Learningcited by 918
  8. 2019Modeling Tabular data using Conditional GANcited by 695
  9. 2019TabNet: Attentive Interpretable Tabular Learningcited by 640
  10. 2019Explaining Machine Learning Classifiers through Diverse Counterfactual Explanationscited by 612
  11. 2021Pay Attention to MLPscited by 367
  12. 2018Statistical Aspects of Wasserstein Distancescited by 202
5 more
  1. 2021If Only We Had Better Counterfactual Explanations: Five Key Deficits to Rectify in the Evaluation of Counterfactual XAI Techniquescited by 82
  2. 2021NICE: An Algorithm for Nearest Instance Counterfactual Explanationscited by 62
  3. 2023Scaling MLPs: A Tale of Inductive Biascited by 37
  4. 2019Explaining Models: An Empirical Study of How Explanations Impact Fairness Judgmentcited by 31
  5. 2020Network On Network for Tabular Data Classification in Real-world Applicationscited by 17

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 4; 2026: 1.

5 papers.