From ML Predictions to Informed Diagnostic Assistance Using the Toulmin Model of Argumentation
Quick Answer
This paper applies the Toulmin model of argumentation to enhance interpretability in ML-based retinal diagnostics.
Quick Take
This paper applies the Toulmin model of argumentation to enhance interpretability in ML-based retinal diagnostics. By integrating a MedGemma agent for medical knowledge and MedSigLip for image similarity, the framework enables critical assessment of ML claims, improving diagnostic accuracy and reliability for healthcare professionals.
Key Points
- Utilizes the Toulmin model to structure ML-generated retinal diagnosis assessments.
- Incorporates MedGemma for medical expertise and MedSigLip for image similarity analysis.
- Enables healthcare professionals to critically evaluate ML claims in diagnostics.
- Improves interpretability and reliability of machine learning predictions in medicine.
Paper Resources
📖 Reader Mode
~2 min readAbstract:To provide a structured and interpretable assessment, we decompose the image-based diagnosis into components following the Toulmin model of argumentation. This model consists of a claim, grounds, warrant, qualifier, rebuttal, and backing. Consider a claim generated by a machine learning (ML) model for retinal diagnosis. Rather than accepting this claim at face value, one could either apply explainable AI (XAI) methods or adopt an argumentation-based approach. In our framework, a model specialized in biomarker extraction from images provides the grounds. The warrant-linking the grounds to the claim - is analyzed by an agent equipped with medical knowledge; in our architecture, this role is fulfilled by a MedGemma agent. The qualifier is determined based on the overall quantitative evaluation of both the warrant and grounds models. Finally, a rebuttal is constructed using image similarity measures computed with MedSigLip. All these components are presented to the human expert, enabling a more informed and critical assessment of the ML-generated diagnosis.
| Subjects: | Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (cs.CV) |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2607.09664 [cs.AI] |
| (or arXiv:2607.09664v1 [cs.AI] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.09664 arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite |
Submission history
From: Adrian Groza [view email]
[v1]
Fri, 1 May 2026 06:58:17 UTC (2,895 KB)
— Originally published at arxiv.org
Want this in your inbox every morning?
Daily brief at your local 8am — bilingual EN/中文, free.
More from arXiv cs.AI
See more →Adversarial Social Epistemology for Assemblies of Humans and Large Language Models
The paper introduces Adversarial Social Epistemology (ASE) to analyze how agents manipulate trust in public communications, highlighting mechanisms that undermine the reliability of testimony and inference. It critiques existing frameworks like epistemic bubbles and misinformation diffusion, proposing a new language for understanding trust breaches and auditing inferential chains in densely interactive environments involving humans and large language models.