Handling missing values in clinical machine learning: Insights from an expert study

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2411.09591v2
• Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2025 10:27:18 GMT
• Title: Handling missing values in clinical machine learning: Insights from an expert study
• Authors: Lena Stempfle, Arthur James, Julie Josse, Tobias Gauss, Fredrik D. Johansson,
• Abstract summary: Inherently interpretable machine learning (IML) models offer valuable support for clinical decision-making. Traditional approaches, such as imputation or discarding incomplete records, are often impractical in scenarios where data is missing at test time. We surveyed 55 clinicians from 29 French trauma centers to study their interaction with three IML models.
• Score: 10.637366819633302
• License:
• Abstract: Inherently interpretable machine learning (IML) models offer valuable support for clinical decision-making but face challenges when features contain missing values. Traditional approaches, such as imputation or discarding incomplete records, are often impractical in scenarios where data is missing at test time. We surveyed 55 clinicians from 29 French trauma centers, collecting 20 complete responses to study their interaction with three IML models in a real-world clinical setting for predicting hemorrhagic shock with missing values. Our findings reveal that while clinicians recognize the value of interpretability and are familiar with common IML approaches, traditional imputation techniques often conflict with their intuition. Instead of imputing unobserved values, they rely on observed features combined with medical intuition and experience. As a result, methods that natively handle missing values are preferred. These findings underscore the need to integrate clinical reasoning into future IML models to enhance human-computer interaction.

Related papers

• ALPEC: A Comprehensive Evaluation Framework and Dataset for Machine Learning-Based Arousal Detection in Clinical Practice [8.530898223158843]
  This paper introduces a novel post-processing and evaluation framework emphasizing approximate localization and precise event count (ALPEC) of arousals. We release the dataset alongside this paper, demonstrating the benefits of leveraging multimodal data for arousal onset detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-20T10:03:37Z)
• Robust and Interpretable Medical Image Classifiers via Concept Bottleneck Models [49.95603725998561]
  We propose a new paradigm to build robust and interpretable medical image classifiers with natural language concepts. Specifically, we first query clinical concepts from GPT-4, then transform latent image features into explicit concepts with a vision-language model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-04T21:57:09Z)
• 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)
• TREEMENT: Interpretable Patient-Trial Matching via Personalized Dynamic Tree-Based Memory Network [54.332862955411656]
  Clinical trials are critical for drug development but often suffer from expensive and inefficient patient recruitment. In recent years, machine learning models have been proposed for speeding up patient recruitment via automatically matching patients with clinical trials. We introduce a dynamic tree-based memory network model named TREEMENT to provide accurate and interpretable patient trial matching.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-19T12:35:09Z)
• Context-dependent Explainability and Contestability for Trustworthy Medical Artificial Intelligence: Misclassification Identification of Morbidity Recognition Models in Preterm Infants [0.0]
  Explainable AI (XAI) aims to address this requirement by clarifying AI reasoning to support the end users. We built our methodology on three main pillars: decomposing the feature set by leveraging clinical context latent space, assessing the clinical association of global explanations, and Latent Space Similarity (LSS) based local explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-17T07:59:09Z)
• 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)
• Integrating Expert ODEs into Neural ODEs: Pharmacology and Disease Progression [71.7560927415706]
  latent hybridisation model (LHM) integrates a system of expert-designed ODEs with machine-learned Neural ODEs to fully describe the dynamics of the system. We evaluate LHM on synthetic data as well as real-world intensive care data of COVID-19 patients.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-05T11:42:45Z)
• Performance metrics for intervention-triggering prediction models do not reflect an expected reduction in outcomes from using the model [71.9860741092209]
  Clinical researchers often select among and evaluate risk prediction models. Standard metrics calculated from retrospective data are only related to model utility under certain assumptions. When predictions are delivered repeatedly throughout time, the relationship between standard metrics and utility is further complicated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-02T16:26:49Z)

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.