Evaluating Machine Learning Models against Clinical Protocols for Enhanced Interpretability and Continuity of Care

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2411.03105v1
• Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2024 13:50:09 GMT
• Title: Evaluating Machine Learning Models against Clinical Protocols for Enhanced Interpretability and Continuity of Care
• Authors: Christel Sirocchi, Muhammad Suffian, Federico Sabbatini, Alessandro Bogliolo, Sara Montagna,
• Abstract summary: In clinical practice, decision-making relies heavily on established protocols, often formalised as rules. Despite the growing number of Machine Learning applications, their adoption into clinical practice remains limited. We propose metrics to assess the accuracy of ML models with respect to the established protocol.
• Score: 39.58317527488534
• License:
• Abstract: In clinical practice, decision-making relies heavily on established protocols, often formalised as rules. Concurrently, Machine Learning (ML) models, trained on clinical data, aspire to integrate into medical decision-making processes. However, despite the growing number of ML applications, their adoption into clinical practice remains limited. Two critical concerns arise, relevant to the notions of consistency and continuity of care: (a) accuracy - the ML model, albeit more accurate, might introduce errors that would not have occurred by applying the protocol; (b) interpretability - ML models operating as black boxes might make predictions based on relationships that contradict established clinical knowledge. In this context, the literature suggests using ML models integrating domain knowledge for improved accuracy and interpretability. However, there is a lack of appropriate metrics for comparing ML models with clinical rules in addressing these challenges. Accordingly, in this article, we first propose metrics to assess the accuracy of ML models with respect to the established protocol. Secondly, we propose an approach to measure the distance of explanations provided by two rule sets, with the goal of comparing the explanation similarity between clinical rule-based systems and rules extracted from ML models. The approach is validated on the Pima Indians Diabetes dataset by training two neural networks - one exclusively on data, and the other integrating a clinical protocol. Our findings demonstrate that the integrated ML model achieves comparable performance to that of a fully data-driven model while exhibiting superior accuracy relative to the clinical protocol, ensuring enhanced continuity of care. Furthermore, we show that our integrated model provides explanations for predictions that align more closely with the clinical protocol compared to the data-driven model.

Related papers

• Reasoning-Enhanced Healthcare Predictions with Knowledge Graph Community Retrieval [61.70489848327436]
  KARE is a novel framework that integrates knowledge graph (KG) community-level retrieval with large language models (LLMs) reasoning. Extensive experiments demonstrate that KARE outperforms leading models by up to 10.8-15.0% on MIMIC-III and 12.6-12.7% on MIMIC-IV for mortality and readmission predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-06T18:46:28Z)
• Stronger Baseline Models -- A Key Requirement for Aligning Machine Learning Research with Clinical Utility [0.0]
  Well-known barriers exist when attempting to deploy Machine Learning models in high-stakes, clinical settings. We show empirically that including stronger baseline models in evaluations has important downstream effects. We propose some best practices that will enable practitioners to more effectively study and deploy ML models in clinical settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-18T16:38:37Z)
• Clinical Validation of a Real-Time Machine Learning-based System for the Detection of Acute Myeloid Leukemia by Flow Cytometry [0.0]
  Machine-learning (ML) models in flow have the potential to reduce error rates, increase efficiency, and boost the efficiency of clinical labs. Few studies have described the clinical deployment of such models. We describe an ML model for detection of Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) along with the infrastructure supporting clinical implementation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-17T16:53:47Z)
• XAI4LLM. Let Machine Learning Models and LLMs Collaborate for Enhanced In-Context Learning in Healthcare [16.79952669254101]
  We develop a novel method for zero-shot/few-shot in-context learning (ICL) using a multi-layered structured prompt. We also explore the efficacy of two communication styles between the user and Large Language Models (LLMs) Our study systematically evaluates the diagnostic accuracy and risk factors, including gender bias and false negative rates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-10T06:52:44Z)
• CPLLM: Clinical Prediction with Large Language Models [0.07083082555458872]
  We present a method that involves fine-tuning a pre-trained Large Language Model (LLM) for clinical disease and readmission prediction. For diagnosis prediction, we predict whether patients will be diagnosed with a target disease during their next visit or in the subsequent diagnosis, leveraging their historical diagnosis records. Our experiments have shown that our proposed method, CPLLM, surpasses all the tested models in terms of PR-AUC and ROC-AUC metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-20T13:24:12Z)
• Mixed-Integer Projections for Automated Data Correction of EMRs Improve Predictions of Sepsis among Hospitalized Patients [7.639610349097473]
  We introduce an innovative projections-based method that seamlessly integrates clinical expertise as domain constraints. We measure the distance of corrected data from the constraints defining a healthy range of patient data, resulting in a unique predictive metric we term as "trust-scores" We show an AUROC of 0.865 and a precision of 0.922, that surpasses conventional ML models without such projections.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-21T15:14:49Z)
• Automated Medical Coding on MIMIC-III and MIMIC-IV: A Critical Review and Replicability Study [60.56194508762205]
  We reproduce, compare, and analyze state-of-the-art automated medical coding machine learning models. We show that several models underperform due to weak configurations, poorly sampled train-test splits, and insufficient evaluation. We present the first comprehensive results on the newly released MIMIC-IV dataset using the reproduced models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-21T11:54:44Z)
• Detecting Shortcut Learning for Fair Medical AI using Shortcut Testing [62.9062883851246]
  Machine learning holds great promise for improving healthcare, but it is critical to ensure that its use will not propagate or amplify health disparities. One potential driver of algorithmic unfairness, shortcut learning, arises when ML models base predictions on improper correlations in the training data. Using multi-task learning, we propose the first method to assess and mitigate shortcut learning as a part of the fairness assessment of clinical ML systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-21T09:35:38Z)
• Benchmarking Heterogeneous Treatment Effect Models through the Lens of Interpretability [82.29775890542967]
  Estimating personalized effects of treatments is a complex, yet pervasive problem. Recent developments in the machine learning literature on heterogeneous treatment effect estimation gave rise to many sophisticated, but opaque, tools. We use post-hoc feature importance methods to identify features that influence the model's predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-16T17:59:05Z)
• VBridge: Connecting the Dots Between Features, Explanations, and Data for Healthcare Models [85.4333256782337]
  VBridge is a visual analytics tool that seamlessly incorporates machine learning explanations into clinicians' decision-making workflow. We identified three key challenges, including clinicians' unfamiliarity with ML features, lack of contextual information, and the need for cohort-level evidence. We demonstrated the effectiveness of VBridge through two case studies and expert interviews with four clinicians.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-08-04T17:34:13Z)

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.