Literature DB >> 28379439

Calibration drift in regression and machine learning models for acute kidney injury.

Sharon E Davis1, Thomas A Lasko1, Guanhua Chen2, Edward D Siew3,4, Michael E Matheny1,2,3,5.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Predictive analytics create opportunities to incorporate personalized risk estimates into clinical decision support. Models must be well calibrated to support decision-making, yet calibration deteriorates over time. This study explored the influence of modeling methods on performance drift and connected observed drift with data shifts in the patient population.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using 2003 admissions to Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals nationwide, we developed 7 parallel models for hospital-acquired acute kidney injury using common regression and machine learning methods, validating each over 9 subsequent years.
RESULTS: Discrimination was maintained for all models. Calibration declined as all models increasingly overpredicted risk. However, the random forest and neural network models maintained calibration across ranges of probability, capturing more admissions than did the regression models. The magnitude of overprediction increased over time for the regression models while remaining stable and small for the machine learning models. Changes in the rate of acute kidney injury were strongly linked to increasing overprediction, while changes in predictor-outcome associations corresponded with diverging patterns of calibration drift across methods.
CONCLUSIONS: Efficient and effective updating protocols will be essential for maintaining accuracy of, user confidence in, and safety of personalized risk predictions to support decision-making. Model updating protocols should be tailored to account for variations in calibration drift across methods and respond to periods of rapid performance drift rather than be limited to regularly scheduled annual or biannual intervals.
© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com

Entities:  

Keywords:  acute kidney injury; calibration; clinical decision support; clinical prediction; discrimination; machine learning

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28379439      PMCID: PMC6080675          DOI: 10.1093/jamia/ocx030

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc        ISSN: 1067-5027            Impact factor:   4.497


  55 in total

1.  Prospective independent validation of APACHE III models in an Australian tertiary adult intensive care unit.

Authors:  D A Cook; C J Joyce; R J Barnett; S P Birgan; H Playford; J G L Cockings; R W Hurford
Journal:  Anaesth Intensive Care       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 1.669

2.  A new framework to enhance the interpretation of external validation studies of clinical prediction models.

Authors:  Thomas P A Debray; Yvonne Vergouwe; Hendrik Koffijberg; Daan Nieboer; Ewout W Steyerberg; Karel G M Moons
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2014-08-30       Impact factor: 6.437

3.  The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.

Authors:  J A Hanley; B J McNeil
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1982-04       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Probability machines: consistent probability estimation using nonparametric learning machines.

Authors:  J D Malley; J Kruppa; A Dasgupta; K G Malley; A Ziegler
Journal:  Methods Inf Med       Date:  2011-09-14       Impact factor: 2.176

5.  Novel prediction score including pre- and intraoperative parameters best predicts acute kidney injury after liver surgery.

Authors:  Ksenija Slankamenac; Beatrice Beck-Schimmer; Stefan Breitenstein; Milo A Puhan; Pierre-Alain Clavien
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 3.352

6.  Risk-prediction models for mortality after coronary artery bypass surgery: application to individual patients.

Authors:  Pankaj Madan; MacArthur A Elayda; Vei-Vei Lee; James M Wilson
Journal:  Int J Cardiol       Date:  2010-03-04       Impact factor: 4.164

7.  Discrimination and calibration of mortality risk prediction models in interventional cardiology.

Authors:  M E Matheny; L Ohno-Machado; F S Resnic
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2005-03-26       Impact factor: 6.317

Review 8.  Reporting performance of prognostic models in cancer: a review.

Authors:  Susan Mallett; Patrick Royston; Rachel Waters; Susan Dutton; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2010-03-30       Impact factor: 8.775

9.  Clinical Risk Scoring Models for Prediction of Acute Kidney Injury after Living Donor Liver Transplantation: A Retrospective Observational Study.

Authors:  Mi Hye Park; Haeng Seon Shim; Won Ho Kim; Hyo-Jin Kim; Dong Joon Kim; Seong-Ho Lee; Chung Su Kim; Mi Sook Gwak; Gaab Soo Kim
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-08-24       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Consensus Statement on Electronic Health Predictive Analytics: A Guiding Framework to Address Challenges.

Authors:  Ruben Amarasingham; Anne-Marie J Audet; David W Bates; I Glenn Cohen; Martin Entwistle; G J Escobar; Vincent Liu; Lynn Etheredge; Bernard Lo; Lucila Ohno-Machado; Sudha Ram; Suchi Saria; Lisa M Schilling; Anand Shahi; Walter F Stewart; Ewout W Steyerberg; Bin Xie
Journal:  EGEMS (Wash DC)       Date:  2016-03-07
View more
  62 in total

Review 1.  Machine learning, the kidney, and genotype-phenotype analysis.

Authors:  Rachel S G Sealfon; Laura H Mariani; Matthias Kretzler; Olga G Troyanskaya
Journal:  Kidney Int       Date:  2020-04-01       Impact factor: 10.612

2.  A nonparametric updating method to correct clinical prediction model drift.

Authors:  Sharon E Davis; Robert A Greevy; Christopher Fonnesbeck; Thomas A Lasko; Colin G Walsh; Michael E Matheny
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2019-12-01       Impact factor: 4.497

3.  Balancing Performance and Interpretability: Selecting Features with Bootstrapped Ridge Regression.

Authors:  Matthew C Lenert; Colin G Walsh
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2018-12-05

4.  Calibration Drift Among Regression and Machine Learning Models for Hospital Mortality.

Authors:  Sharon E Davis; Thomas A Lasko; Guanhua Chen; Michael E Matheny
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2018-04-16

5.  Predicting 30-Day Hospital Readmission Risk in a National Cohort of Patients with Cirrhosis.

Authors:  Jejo D Koola; Sam B Ho; Aize Cao; Guanhua Chen; Amy M Perkins; Sharon E Davis; Michael E Matheny
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2019-09-17       Impact factor: 3.199

6.  Reaching Those at Highest Risk for Suicide: Development of a Model Using Machine Learning Methods for use With Native American Communities.

Authors:  Emily E Haroz; Colin G Walsh; Novalene Goklish; Mary F Cwik; Victoria O'Keefe; Allison Barlow
Journal:  Suicide Life Threat Behav       Date:  2019-11-06

7.  Comparison of Prediction Model Performance Updating Protocols: Using a Data-Driven Testing Procedure to Guide Updating.

Authors:  Sharon E Davis; Robert A Greevy; Thomas A Lasko; Colin G Walsh; Michael E Matheny
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2020-03-04

8.  Prognostic models will be victims of their own success, unless….

Authors:  Matthew C Lenert; Michael E Matheny; Colin G Walsh
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2019-12-01       Impact factor: 4.497

9.  Development and Prospective Validation of a Machine Learning-Based Risk of Readmission Model in a Large Military Hospital.

Authors:  Carly Eckert; Neris Nieves-Robbins; Elena Spieker; Tom Louwers; David Hazel; James Marquardt; Keith Solveson; Anam Zahid; Muhammad Ahmad; Richard Barnhill; T Greg McKelvey; Robert Marshall; Eric Shry; Ankur Teredesai
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2019-05-08       Impact factor: 2.342

10.  Beyond discrimination: A comparison of calibration methods and clinical usefulness of predictive models of readmission risk.

Authors:  Colin G Walsh; Kavya Sharman; George Hripcsak
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2017-10-24       Impact factor: 6.317

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.