A Practical Guide Towards Interpreting Time-Series Deep Clinical Predictive Models: A Reproducibility Study
Authors: Yongda Fan, John Wu, Andrea Fitzpatrick, Naveen Baskaran, Jimeng Sun, Adam Cross
Organizations: University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL 61801, USA · PyHealth · University of Illinois College of Medicine, Chicago, IL 60612, USA
Clinical decisions are high-stakes and require explicit justification, making model interpretability essential for auditing deep clinical models prior to deployment. As the ecosystem of model architectures and explainability methods expands, critical questions remain: Do architectural features like attention improve explainability? Do interpretability approaches generalize across clinical tasks? While prior benchmarking efforts exist, they often lack extensibility and reproducibility, and critically, fail to systematically examine how interpretability varies across the interplay of clinical tasks and model architectures. To address these gaps, we present a comprehensive benchmark evaluating interpretability methods across diverse clinical prediction tasks and model architectures. Our analysis reveals that: (1) attention when leveraged properly is a highly efficient approach for faithfully interpreting model predictions; (2) black-box interpreters like KernelSHAP and LIME are computationally infeasible for time-series clinical prediction tasks; and (3) several interpretability approaches are too unreliable to be trustworthy. From our findings, we discuss several guidelines on improving interpretability within clinical predictive pipelines. To support reproducibility and extensibility, we provide our implementations via PyHealth, a well-documented open-source framework: https://github.com/sunlabuiuc/PyHealth.
Figures & tables
Study
Extensible to Other Workflows
Public Code Available
Explores Different Tasks
Cross-compares Models & Tasks
Explores New Approaches
BenchXAI [ 17 ]
✗
✓
✓
✗
✗
MIMIC-IF [ 16 ]
✗
✗
✗
✗
✗
Zhou et al. [ 29 ]
✗
✗
✗
✗
✗
Brankovic et al. [ 4 ]
✗
✗
✓
✗
✗
Ours
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
Table 1: Comparison of interpretability reproducibility studies in healthcare AI. This benchmark advances prior work by (1) evaluating recent interpretability methods, (2) comparing across multiple tasks and models, and (3) providing an accessible, open-source implementation in PyHealth that can directly extend to workflows beyond this study.
Lose
Chefer
DeepLift
GIM
IG
LIME
SHAP
Baseline
Win
Chefer
-
5/6
6/6
4/6
5/6
5/6
6/6
DeepLift
1/6
-
4/9
1/9
5/9
3/9
6/9
GIM
0/6
5/9
-
1/9
5/9
3/9
7/9
IG
2/6
8/9
8/9
-
9/9
7/9
9/9
LIME
1/6
4/9
4/9
0/9
-
2/9
6/9
Table 2: Interpretability Performance Matrix. Each cell shows the number of model-task pairs where the row method outperforms the column method, scored by Comprehensiveness×(1−Sufficiency) . Darker orange indicates higher win rate when reading horizontally, and higher lose rates when reading vertically.
Figure 1: Faithfulness Benchmark Results. For proper interpretation, (green arrows) higher comprehensiveness and lower sufficiency imply more faithful explanations generated. We observe that Integrated Gradients is consistently a top-performer in terms of interpretation and Chefer emerges as a competitive method for attention-based models, while many of the other approaches move a tremendous degree depending on the task and model.
Figure 2: Runtime Comparison. For proper interpretation, (green arrows) higher comprehensiveness and lower runtime imply more desirable trade-off. We observe that Shap tends to run significantly longer with minimal advantages compare to others, while Integrated Gradients and Chefer can typically interpret the models better with much shorter runtime.
Mortality Prediction
DKA Prediction
Length of Stay
Model
PR-AUC
ROC-AUC
Acc.
F1
PR-AUC
ROC-AUC
Acc.
F1
Acc.
F1-W
F1-Ma
F1-Mi
StageNet
0.6870
0.9576
0.9618
0.6188
0.0789
0.8604
0.9951
0.1682
0.5862
0.5809
0.5694
0.5862
StageAttn
0.6955
0.9441
0.9602
0.6102
0.0783
0.8448
0.9963
0.0571
0.5819
0.5791
0.5741
0.5819
Transformer
0.6134
0.9488
0.9504
0.5267
0.1075
0.8400
0.9968
0.0938
0.2434
0.1800
0.1511
0.2434
Table 3: Model Performance Across All Tasks on MIMIC-IV Dataset. Bold values indicate best performance within each task. Acc. = Accuracy, F1-W = F1-Weighted, F1-Ma = F1-Macro, F1-Mi = F1-Micro.
School of Engineering, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK · Causality in Healthcare AI Hub (CHAI), UK · Advanced Care Research Centre, Usher School of Population Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK +1