Skip to main content

Explainability of Machine Learning in Work Disability Risk Prediction

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Proceedings of the 2023 International Conference on Advances in Computing Research (ACR’23) (ACR 2023)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems ((LNNS,volume 700))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

The risk of work disability can be predicted with machine learning (ML). All stakeholders should understand how the estimation is done to trust the results. Thus, these methods should be not only sufficiently accurate but also transparent and explainable. Explainability is one topic in artificial intelligence (AI) Ethics. Explainable AI (XAI) is especially important in health-related topics. We compared the accuracy of two ML methods that use occupational health care data (MHealth) and pension decision register data (MPension). Method MHealth uses deep neural networks and natural language processing (NLP) algorithms and method MPension uses different decision tree algorithms. We can assume that both methods are black box predictors because the reasoning behind the function is not understandable by humans. We observed in our previous study that both methods are sufficiently accurate to support experts in decision making. Our aim in this study was to determine if these methods are sufficiently explainable for clinical use. The two main approaches to estimating the explainability of the ML methods are transparency design and post-hoc explanations. We could not access the data for these methods and had to limit our research to the post-hoc explanation approach. We formulated the visualizations for the methods MHealth and MPension and discussed how understandable they are. We also determined that the explainability is better in MPension but the deep learning algorithm in MHealth is also possible to visualize.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. OECD: Sickness, Disability and Work: Breaking the Barriers. OECD Publishing, Paris (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Saarela, K., Huhta-Koivisto, V., Nurminen, J.K.: Ethical aspects of work disability risk prediction using machine learning. In: Nagar, A.K., Singh Jat, D., Kumar Mishra, D., Joshi, A. (eds.) Intelligent Sustainable Systems: Selected Papers of WorldS4 2022, vo. 1, pp. 499–509. Springer Nature, Singapore (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-7660-5_43

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Airaksinen, J., et al.: Development and validation of a risk prediction model for work disability: multicohort study. Sci. Rep. 7(1), 13578 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Salonen, L., Blomgren, J., Laaksonen, M.: From long-term sickness absence to disability retirement: diagnostic and occupational class differences within the working-age Finnish population. BMC Publ. Health 20(1), 1–11 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Salonen, L., Alexanderson, K., Rugulies, R., et al.: Combinations of job demands and job control and future trajectories of sickness absence and disability pension an 11-year follow-up of two million employees in Sweden. J. Occup. Env. Med. 62(10), 795–802 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bethge, M., Spanier, K., Köhn, S., Schlumbohm, A.: Self-reported work ability predicts health-related exit and absence from work, work participation, and death: longitudinal findings from a sample of German employees. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 94(4), 591–599 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Shiri, R., et al.: A screening tool for the risk of disability retirement due to musculoskeletal disorders. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 44(1), 37–46 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. van Amelsvoort, L.G.P.M., Kant, I.J., Beurskens, A.J.H.M., Schröer, C.A.P., Swaen, G.M.H.: Fatigue as a predictor of work disability. Occup, Env. Med. 59(10), 712–713 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lindström, I., Pallasaho, P., Remes, J., et al.: Does lung function predict the risk of disability pension? An 11-year register-based follow-up study. BMC Public Health 20, 165 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Pham, A.D., et al.: Natural language processing of radiology reports for the detection of thromboembolic diseases and clinically relevant incidental findings. BMC Bioinform. 15(1), 266 (2014)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Huhta-Koivisto, T.: Work disability risk prediction with machine learning. Master Thesis. Aalto University, School of Electrical Engineering, 56 p. Espoo (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Saarela, K., Huhta-Koivisto, V., Nurminen, J.K.: Work disability risk prediction using machine learning, comparison of two methods. In: Daimi, K., Al Sadoon, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the ICR’22 International Conference on Innovations in Computing Research, pp. 13–21. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14054-9_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Jobin, A., Ienca, M., Vayena, E.: The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nat. Mach. Intell. 1, 389–399 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Nickel, J.: Human Rights. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/rights-human/ (2021)

  15. Parliament, E.: Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46. OJEU 59, 294 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Miller K.: AI decisions: do we deserve an explanation? 29 Jun 2020. https://www.futurity.org/ai-decisions-right-to-explanation-2394872-2/. Accessed 11 Nov 2021

  17. Ghassemi, M., Oakden-Rayner, L., Beam, A.L.: The false hope of current approaches to explainable artificial intelligence in health care. The Lancet Dig. Health 3(11), e745–e750 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Doshi-Velez, F., Been, K.: Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.08608 (2017)

  19. Xu, F., Uszkoreit, H., Du, Y., Fan, W., Zhao, D., Zhu, J.: Explainable AI: a brief survey on history, research areas, approaches and challenges. In: Tang, J., Kan, M.-Y., Zhao, D., Li, S., Zan, H. (eds.) NLPCC 2019. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 11839, pp. 563–574. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32236-6_51

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Angelov, P.P., Soares, E.A., Jiang, R., Arnold, N.I., Atkinson, P.M.: Explainable artificial intelligence: an analytical review. Wiley Interdisc. Rev.: Data Min. Knowl. Discovery 11(5), e1424 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1002/widm.1424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Wells, L., Bednarz, T.: Explainable ai and reinforcement learning—a systematic review of current approaches and trends. Front. Artif. Intell. 4 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ananny, M., Crawford, K.: Seeing without knowing: Limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability. New Media Soc. 20(3), 973–989 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Mittelstadt, B., Russell, C., Wachter, S.: Explaining Explanations in AI. arXiv:1811.01439v1 [cs.AI]. 4 Nov 2018

  24. Rudin, C.: Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead. Nat. Mach. Intell. 1(5), 206–215 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. European Comission: Digital strategy – managing health data. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/health-data. Accessed 26 Nov 2022

  26. Varis, J.: “Eläketurvakeskuksen koneoppimiskokeilu – näin se tehtiin!”, Finnish Centre for Pensions, blog post, https://www.etk.fi/blogit/elaketurvakeskuksen-koneoppimiskokeilu-nain-se-tehtiin/. 17 Apr 2018

  27. European Pensions: Finnish AI testing successfully identifies future retirees facing disability pension. https://www.europeanpensions.net/ep/Finnish-AI-successfully-identifies-future-retirees-facing-disability-pension.php. 17 Apr 2018

  28. Guidotti, R., Monreale, A., Ruggieri, S., Turini, F., Giannotti, F., Pedreschi, D.: A survey of methods for explaining black box models. ACM Comput. Surv. 51(5), 1–42 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katja Saarela .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Saarela, K., Huhta-Koivisto, V., Kemell, KK., Nurminen, J.K. (2023). Explainability of Machine Learning in Work Disability Risk Prediction. In: Daimi, K., Al Sadoon, A. (eds) Proceedings of the 2023 International Conference on Advances in Computing Research (ACR’23). ACR 2023. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol 700. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33743-7_20

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics