Evaluating the Explainable AI Method Grad-CAM for Breath Classification on Newborn Time Series Data

With the digitalization of health care systems, artificial intelligence becomes more present in medicine. Especially machine learning shows great potential for complex tasks such as time series classification, usually at the cost of transparency and comprehensibility. This leads to a lack of trust by humans and thus hinders its active usage. Explainable artificial intelligence tries to close this gap by providing insight into the decision-making process, the actual usefulness of its different methods is however unclear. This paper proposes a user study based evaluation of the explanation method Grad-CAM with application to a neural network for the classification of breaths in time series neonatal ventilation data. We present the perceived usefulness of the explainability method by different stakeholders, exposing the difficulty to achieve actual transparency and the wish for more in-depth explanations by many of the participants.

Toxic comments reduce the activity of volunteer editors on Wikipedia

Wikipedia is one of the most successful collaborative projects in history. It is the largest encyclopedia ever created, with millions of users worldwide relying on it as the first source of information as well as for fact-checking and in-depth research. As Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of its volunteer-editors, its success might be particularly affected by toxic speech. In this paper, we analyze all 57 million comments made on user talk pages of 8.5 million editors across the six most active language editions of Wikipedia to study the potential impact of toxicity on editors' behaviour. We find that toxic comments consistently reduce the activity of editors, leading to an estimated loss of 0.5-2 active days per user in the short term. This amounts to multiple human-years of lost productivity when considering the number of active contributors to Wikipedia. The effects of toxic comments are even greater in the long term, as they significantly increase the risk of editors leaving the project altogether. Using an agent-based model, we demonstrate that toxicity attacks on Wikipedia have the potential to impede the progress of the entire project. Our results underscore the importance of mitigating toxic speech on collaborative platforms such as Wikipedia to ensure their continued success.