Explore the vast range of titles available.

Fluctuating symptoms and side effects are common during outpatient cancer treatment, and approaches to monitoring symptoms vary widely across providers, patients, and clinical settings. To design a remote symptom monitoring system that patients and providers find to be useful, it may be helpful to understand current clinical approaches to monitoring and managing chemotherapy-related symptoms among patients and providers and assess how more frequent and systematic assessment and sharing of data could improve patient and provider experiences. The goals of this study were to learn about patient and provider perspectives on monitoring symptoms during chemotherapy, understand barriers and challenges to effective symptom monitoring at one institution, and explore the potential value of remote symptom monitoring between provider visits. A total of 15 patients who were currently undergoing or had recently completed chemotherapy and 7 oncology providers participated in semistructured interviews. Interviews were transcribed and coded using an iterative thematic analysis approach. The study was conducted at a National Cancer Institute-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. Four main themes were discussed by patients and providers: (1) asynchronous nature of current methods for tracking and managing symptoms, (2) variability in reported symptoms due to patient factors, (3) limitations of existing communication channels, and (4) potential value of real-time remote symptom monitoring during chemotherapy. Current asynchronous methods and existing communication channels resulted in a disconnect between when symptoms are most severe and when conversations about symptoms happen, a situation further complicated by memory impairments during chemotherapy. Patients and providers both highlighted improvements in patient-provider communication as a potential benefit of remote real-time symptom monitoring. Providers also emphasized the value of temporal data regarding when symptoms first emerge and how they progress over time, as well as the potential value of concurrent activity or other data about daily activities and functioning. Patients noted that symptom monitoring could result in better preparation for subsequent treatment cycles. Both patients and providers highlighted significant challenges of asynchronous, patient-initiated, phone-dependent symptom monitoring and management. Oncology patients and providers reported that more routine remote monitoring of symptoms between visits could improve patient-provider communication, prepare patients for subsequent chemotherapy cycles, and facilitate provider insight and clinical decision-making with regard to symptom management.

The COVID-19 pandemic presented enormous data challenges in the United States. Policy makers, epidemiological modelers, and health researchers all require up-to-date data on the pandemic and relevant public behavior, ideally at fine spatial and temporal resolution. The COVIDcast API is our attempt to fill this need: Operational since April 2020, it provides open access to both traditional public health surveillance signals (cases, deaths, and hospitalizations) and many auxiliary indicators of COVID-19 activity, such as signals extracted from deidentified medical claims data, massive online surveys, cell phone mobility data, and internet search trends. These are available at a fine geographic resolution (mostly at the county level) and are updated daily. The COVIDcast API also tracks all revisions to historical data, allowing modelers to account for the frequent revisions and backfill that are common for many public health data sources. All of the data are available in a common format through the API and accompanying R and Python software packages. This paper describes the data sources and signals, and provides examples demonstrating that the auxiliary signals in the COVIDcast API present information relevant to tracking COVID activity, augmenting traditional public health reporting and empowering research and decision-making.

Deep learning methods, in particular convolutional neural networks, have emerged as a powerful tool in medical image computing tasks. While these complex models provide excellent performance, their black-box nature may hinder real-world adoption in high-stakes decision-making. In this paper, we propose an interactive system to take advantage of state-of-the-art interpretability techniques to assist radiologists with breast cancer screening. Our system integrates a deep learning model into the radiologists' workflow and provides novel interactions to promote understanding of the model's decision-making process. Moreover, we demonstrate that our system can take advantage of user interactions progressively to provide finer-grained explainability reports with little labeling overhead. Due to the generic nature of the adopted interpretability technique, our system is domain-agnostic and can be used for many different medical image computing tasks, presenting a novel perspective on how we can leverage visual analytics to transform originally static interpretability techniques to augment human decision making and promote the adoption of medical AI.

People work with AI systems to improve their decision making, but often under- or over-rely on AI predictions and perform worse than they would have unassisted. To help people appropriately rely on AI aids, we propose showing them behavior descriptions, details of how AI systems perform on subgroups of instances. We tested the efficacy of behavior descriptions through user studies with 225 participants in three distinct domains: fake review detection, satellite image classification, and bird classification. We found that behavior descriptions can increase human-AI accuracy through two mechanisms: helping people identify AI failures and increasing people's reliance on the AI when it is more accurate. These findings highlight the importance of people's mental models in human-AI collaboration and show that informing people of high-level AI behaviors can significantly improve AI-assisted decision making.

Explainability techniques are rapidly being developed to improve human-AI decision-making across various cooperative work settings. Consequently, previous research has evaluated how decision-makers collaborate with imperfect AI by investigating appropriate reliance and task performance with the aim of designing more human-centered computer-supported collaborative tools. Several human-centered explainable AI (XAI) techniques have been proposed in hopes of improving decision-makers' collaboration with AI; however, these techniques are grounded in findings from previous studies that primarily focus on the impact of incorrect AI advice. Few studies acknowledge the possibility of the explanations being incorrect even if the AI advice is correct. Thus, it is crucial to understand how imperfect XAI affects human-AI decision-making. In this work, we contribute a robust, mixed-methods user study with 136 participants to evaluate how incorrect explanations influence humans' decision-making behavior in a bird species identification task, taking into account their level of expertise and an explanation's level of assertiveness. Our findings reveal the influence of imperfect XAI and humans' level of expertise on their reliance on AI and human-AI team performance. We also discuss how explanations can deceive decision-makers during human-AI collaboration. Hence, we shed light on the impacts of imperfect XAI in the field of computer-supported cooperative work and provide guidelines for designers of human-AI collaboration systems.

Reinforcement learning (RL) is a promising approach to generate treatment policies for sepsis patients in intensive care. While retrospective evaluation metrics show decreased mortality when these policies are followed, studies with clinicians suggest their recommendations are often spurious. We propose that these shortcomings may be due to lack of diversity in observed actions and outcomes in the training data, and we construct experiments to investigate the feasibility of predicting sepsis disease severity changes due to clinician actions. Preliminary results suggest incorporating action information does not significantly improve model performance, indicating that clinician actions may not be sufficiently variable to yield measurable effects on disease progression. We discuss the implications of these findings for optimizing sepsis treatment.

Machine learning models with high accuracy on test data can still produce systematic failures, such as harmful biases and safety issues, when deployed in the real world. To detect and mitigate such failures, practitioners run behavioral evaluation of their models, checking model outputs for specific types of inputs. Behavioral evaluation is important but challenging, requiring that practitioners discover real-world patterns and validate systematic failures. We conducted 18 semi-structured interviews with ML practitioners to better understand the challenges of behavioral evaluation and found that it is a collaborative, use-case-first process that is not adequately supported by existing task- and domain-specific tools. Using these findings, we designed Zeno, a general-purpose framework for visualizing and testing AI systems across diverse use cases. In four case studies with participants using Zeno on real-world models, we found that practitioners were able to reproduce previous manual analyses and discover new systematic failures.

Custom animated visualizations of large, complex datasets are helpful across many domains, but they are hard to develop. Much of the difficulty arises from maintaining visualization state across many animated graphical elements that may change in number over time. We contribute Counterpoint, a framework for state management designed to help implement such visualizations in JavaScript. Using Counterpoint, developers can manipulate large collections of marks with reactive attributes that are easy to render in scalable APIs such as Canvas and WebGL. Counterpoint also helps orchestrate the entry and exit of graphical elements using the concept of a rendering \"stage.\" Through a performance evaluation, we show that Counterpoint adds minimal overhead over current high-performance rendering techniques while simplifying implementation. We provide two examples of visualizations created using Counterpoint that illustrate its flexibility and compatibility with other visualization toolkits as well as considerations for users with disabilities. Counterpoint is open-source and available at https://github.com/cmudig/counterpoint.

AI systems can fail to learn important behaviors, leading to real-world issues like safety concerns and biases. Discovering these systematic failures often requires significant developer attention, from hypothesizing potential edge cases to collecting evidence and validating patterns. To scale and streamline this process, we introduce crowdsourced failure reports, end-user descriptions of how or why a model failed, and show how developers can use them to detect AI errors. We also design and implement Deblinder, a visual analytics system for synthesizing failure reports that developers can use to discover and validate systematic failures. In semi-structured interviews and think-aloud studies with 10 AI practitioners, we explore the affordances of the Deblinder system and the applicability of failure reports in real-world settings. Lastly, we show how collecting additional data from the groups identified by developers can improve model performance.

Modern machine learning techniques commonly rely on complex, high-dimensional embedding representations to capture underlying structure in the data and improve performance. In order to characterize model flaws and choose a desirable representation, model builders often need to compare across multiple embedding spaces, a challenging analytical task supported by few existing tools. We first interviewed nine embedding experts in a variety of fields to characterize the diverse challenges they face and techniques they use when analyzing embedding spaces. Informed by these perspectives, we developed a novel system called Emblaze that integrates embedding space comparison within a computational notebook environment. Emblaze uses an animated, interactive scatter plot with a novel Star Trail augmentation to enable visual comparison. It also employs novel neighborhood analysis and clustering procedures to dynamically suggest groups of points with interesting changes between spaces. Through a series of case studies with ML experts, we demonstrate how interactive comparison with Emblaze can help gain new insights into embedding space structure.