Standing on FURM ground -- A framework for evaluating Fair, Useful, and Reliable AI Models in healthcare systems

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.07911v2
• Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 18:37:53 GMT
• Title: Standing on FURM ground -- A framework for evaluating Fair, Useful, and Reliable AI Models in healthcare systems
• Authors: Alison Callahan, Duncan McElfresh, Juan M. Banda, Gabrielle Bunney, Danton Char, Jonathan Chen, Conor K. Corbin, Debadutta Dash, Norman L. Downing, Sneha S. Jain, Nikesh Kotecha, Jonathan Masterson, Michelle M. Mello, Keith Morse, Srikar Nallan, Abby Pandya, Anurang Revri, Aditya Sharma, Christopher Sharp, Rahul Thapa, Michael Wornow, Alaa Youssef, Michael A. Pfeffer, Nigam H. Shah,
• Abstract summary: Stanford Health Care has developed a Testing and Evaluation mechanism to identify fair, useful and reliable AI models. We describe the assessment process, summarize the six assessments, and share our framework to enable others to conduct similar assessments. Our novel contributions - usefulness estimates by simulation, financial projections to quantify sustainability, and a process to do ethical assessments - are available for other healthcare systems to conduct actionable evaluations of candidate AI solutions.
• Score: 6.305990032645096
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: The impact of using artificial intelligence (AI) to guide patient care or operational processes is an interplay of the AI model's output, the decision-making protocol based on that output, and the capacity of the stakeholders involved to take the necessary subsequent action. Estimating the effects of this interplay before deployment, and studying it in real time afterwards, are essential to bridge the chasm between AI model development and achievable benefit. To accomplish this, the Data Science team at Stanford Health Care has developed a Testing and Evaluation (T&E) mechanism to identify fair, useful and reliable AI models (FURM) by conducting an ethical review to identify potential value mismatches, simulations to estimate usefulness, financial projections to assess sustainability, as well as analyses to determine IT feasibility, design a deployment strategy, and recommend a prospective monitoring and evaluation plan. We report on FURM assessments done to evaluate six AI guided solutions for potential adoption, spanning clinical and operational settings, each with the potential to impact from several dozen to tens of thousands of patients each year. We describe the assessment process, summarize the six assessments, and share our framework to enable others to conduct similar assessments. Of the six solutions we assessed, two have moved into a planning and implementation phase. Our novel contributions - usefulness estimates by simulation, financial projections to quantify sustainability, and a process to do ethical assessments - as well as their underlying methods and open source tools, are available for other healthcare systems to conduct actionable evaluations of candidate AI solutions.

Related papers

• Developing and Maintaining an Open-Source Repository of AI Evaluations: Challenges and Insights [44.99833362998488]
  This paper presents practical insights from eight months of maintaining $_evals$, an open-source repository of 70+ community-contributed AI evaluations.<n>We identify key challenges in implementing and maintaining AI evaluations and develop solutions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-09T14:30:45Z)
• Data Analysis in the Era of Generative AI [56.44807642944589]
  This paper explores the potential of AI-powered tools to reshape data analysis, focusing on design considerations and challenges. We explore how the emergence of large language and multimodal models offers new opportunities to enhance various stages of data analysis workflow. We then examine human-centered design principles that facilitate intuitive interactions, build user trust, and streamline the AI-assisted analysis workflow across multiple apps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-27T06:31:03Z)
• Evaluating Human-AI Collaboration: A Review and Methodological Framework [4.41358655687435]
  The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in working environments with individuals, known as Human-AI Collaboration (HAIC), has become essential. evaluating HAIC's effectiveness remains challenging due to the complex interaction of components involved. This paper provides a detailed analysis of existing HAIC evaluation approaches and develops a fresh paradigm for more effectively evaluating these systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-09T12:52:22Z)
• ConSiDERS-The-Human Evaluation Framework: Rethinking Human Evaluation for Generative Large Language Models [53.00812898384698]
  We argue that human evaluation of generative large language models (LLMs) should be a multidisciplinary undertaking. We highlight how cognitive biases can conflate fluent information and truthfulness, and how cognitive uncertainty affects the reliability of rating scores such as Likert. We propose the ConSiDERS-The-Human evaluation framework consisting of 6 pillars -- Consistency, Scoring Criteria, Differentiating, User Experience, Responsible, and Scalability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-28T22:45:28Z)
• Evaluating General-Purpose AI with Psychometrics [43.85432514910491]
  We discuss the need for a comprehensive and accurate evaluation of general-purpose AI systems such as large language models. Current evaluation methodology, mostly based on benchmarks of specific tasks, falls short of adequately assessing these versatile AI systems. To tackle these challenges, we suggest transitioning from task-oriented evaluation to construct-oriented evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-25T05:38:38Z)
• From Static Benchmarks to Adaptive Testing: Psychometrics in AI Evaluation [60.14902811624433]
  We discuss a paradigm shift from static evaluation methods to adaptive testing. This involves estimating the characteristics and value of each test item in the benchmark and dynamically adjusting items in real-time. We analyze the current approaches, advantages, and underlying reasons for adopting psychometrics in AI evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-18T09:54:33Z)
• Clinical Outcome Prediction from Admission Notes using Self-Supervised Knowledge Integration [55.88616573143478]
  Outcome prediction from clinical text can prevent doctors from overlooking possible risks. Diagnoses at discharge, procedures performed, in-hospital mortality and length-of-stay prediction are four common outcome prediction targets. We propose clinical outcome pre-training to integrate knowledge about patient outcomes from multiple public sources.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-08T10:26:44Z)
• Opportunities of a Machine Learning-based Decision Support System for Stroke Rehabilitation Assessment [64.52563354823711]
  Rehabilitation assessment is critical to determine an adequate intervention for a patient. Current practices of assessment mainly rely on therapist's experience, and assessment is infrequently executed due to the limited availability of a therapist. We developed an intelligent decision support system that can identify salient features of assessment using reinforcement learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-27T17:04:07Z)
• Interpretable Off-Policy Evaluation in Reinforcement Learning by Highlighting Influential Transitions [48.91284724066349]
  Off-policy evaluation in reinforcement learning offers the chance of using observational data to improve future outcomes in domains such as healthcare and education. Traditional measures such as confidence intervals may be insufficient due to noise, limited data and confounding. We develop a method that could serve as a hybrid human-AI system, to enable human experts to analyze the validity of policy evaluation estimates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-10T00:26:43Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.