Comparison of clinical geneticist and computer visual attention in assessing genetic conditions.

Artificial intelligence (AI) for facial diagnostics is increasingly used in the genetics clinic to evaluate patients with potential genetic conditions. Current approaches focus on one type of AI called Deep Learning (DL). While DL- based facial diagnostic platforms have a high accuracy rate for many conditions, less is understood about how this technology assesses and classifies (categorizes) images, and how this compares to humans. To compare human and computer attention, we performed eye-tracking analyses of geneticist clinicians (n = 22) and non-clinicians (n = 22) who viewed images of people with 10 different genetic conditions, as well as images of unaffected individuals. We calculated the Intersection-over-Union (IoU) and Kullback-Leibler divergence (KL) to compare the visual attentions of the two participant groups, and then the clinician group against the saliency maps of our deep learning classifier. We found that human visual attention differs greatly from DL model's saliency results. Averaging over all the test images, IoU and KL metric for the successful (accurate) clinician visual attentions versus the saliency maps were 0.15 and 11.15, respectively. Individuals also tend to have a specific pattern of image inspection, and clinicians demonstrate different visual attention patterns than non-clinicians (IoU and KL of clinicians versus non-clinicians were 0.47 and 2.73, respectively). This study shows that humans (at different levels of expertise) and a computer vision model examine images differently. Understanding these differences can improve the design and use of AI tools, and lead to more meaningful interactions between clinicians and AI technologies.

Human and computer attention in assessing genetic conditions.

Deep learning (DL) and other types of artificial intelligence (AI) are increasingly used in many biomedical areas, including genetics. One frequent use in medical genetics involves evaluating images of people with potential genetic conditions to help with diagnosis. A central question involves better understanding how AI classifiers assess images compared to humans. To explore this, we performed eye-tracking analyses of geneticist clinicians and non-clinicians. We compared results to DL-based saliency maps. We found that human visual attention when assessing images differs greatly from the parts of images weighted by the DL model. Further, individuals tend to have a specific pattern of image inspection, and clinicians demonstrate different visual attention patterns than non-clinicians.