Search

The great success in graph neural networks (GNNs) provokes the question about explainability: Which fraction of the input graph is the most determinant of the prediction? Particularly, parametric explainers prevail in existing approaches because of their stronger capability to decipher the black-box (i.e., the target GNN). In this paper, based on the observation that graphs typically share some joint motif patterns, we propose a novel non-parametric subgraph matching framework, dubbed MatchExplainer, to explore explanatory subgraphs. It couples the target graph with other counterpart instances and identifies the most crucial joint substructure by minimizing the node corresponding-based distance. Moreover, we note that present graph sampling or node-dropping methods usually suffer from the false positive sampling problem. To ameliorate that issue, we design a new augmentation paradigm named MatchDrop. It takes advantage of MatchExplainer to fix the most informative portion of the graph and merely operates graph augmentations on the rest less informative part. We conduct extensive experiments on both synthetic and real-world datasets and show the effectiveness of our MatchExplainer by outperforming all parametric baselines with significant margins. Additional results also demonstrate that our MatchDrop is a general scheme to be equipped with GNNs for enhanced performance.

Machine learning methods offer great promise for fast and accurate detection and prognostication of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) from standard-of-care chest radiographs (CXR) and chest computed tomography (CT) images. Many articles have been published in 2020 describing new machine learning-based models for both of these tasks, but it is unclear which are of potential clinical utility. In this systematic review, we consider all published papers and preprints, for the period from 1 January 2020 to 3 October 2020, which describe new machine learning models for the diagnosis or prognosis of COVID-19 from CXR or CT images. All manuscripts uploaded to bioRxiv, medRxiv and arXiv along with all entries in EMBASE and MEDLINE in this timeframe are considered. Our search identified 2,212 studies, of which 415 were included after initial screening and, after quality screening, 62 studies were included in this systematic review. Our review finds that none of the models identified are of potential clinical use due to methodological flaws and/or underlying biases. This is a major weakness, given the urgency with which validated COVID-19 models are needed. To address this, we give many recommendations which, if followed, will solve these issues and lead to higher-quality model development and well-documented manuscripts.