Literature DB >> 32308897

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

Sharon E Davis1, Robert A Greevy1, Thomas A Lasko1, Colin G Walsh1, Michael E Matheny1,1.   

Abstract

In evolving clinical environments, the accuracy of prediction models deteriorates over time. Guidance on the design of model updating policies is limited, and there is limited exploration of the impact of different policies on future model performance and across different model types. We implemented a new data-driven updating strategy based on a nonparametric testing procedure and compared this strategy to two baseline approaches in which models are never updated or fully refit annually. The test-based strategy generally recommended intermittent recalibration and delivered more highly calibrated predictions than either of the baseline strategies. The test-based strategy highlighted differences in the updating requirements between logistic regression, L1-regularized logistic regression, random forest, and neural network models, both in terms of the extent and timing of updates. These findings underscore the potential improvements in using a data-driven maintenance approach over "one-size fits all" to sustain more stable and accurate model performance over time. ©2019 AMIA - All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Year:  2020        PMID: 32308897      PMCID: PMC7153129     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc        ISSN: 1559-4076


  17 in total

1.  Validation and updating of predictive logistic regression models: a study on sample size and shrinkage.

Authors:  Ewout W Steyerberg; Gerard J J M Borsboom; Hans C van Houwelingen; Marinus J C Eijkemans; J Dik F Habbema
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2004-08-30       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 2.  Risk prediction models: II. External validation, model updating, and impact assessment.

Authors:  Karel G M Moons; Andre Pascal Kengne; Diederick E Grobbee; Patrick Royston; Yvonne Vergouwe; Douglas G Altman; Mark Woodward
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2012-03-07       Impact factor: 5.994

3.  Flexible recalibration of binary clinical prediction models.

Authors:  Jarrod E Dalton
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2012-07-30       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  A new calibration test and a reappraisal of the calibration belt for the assessment of prediction models based on dichotomous outcomes.

Authors:  Giovanni Nattino; Stefano Finazzi; Guido Bertolini
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2014-02-04       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  A closed testing procedure to select an appropriate method for updating prediction models.

Authors:  Yvonne Vergouwe; Daan Nieboer; Rianne Oostenbrink; Thomas P A Debray; Gordon D Murray; Michael W Kattan; Hendrik Koffijberg; Karel G M Moons; Ewout W Steyerberg
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2016-11-28       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  A spline-based tool to assess and visualize the calibration of multiclass risk predictions.

Authors:  K Van Hoorde; S Van Huffel; D Timmerman; T Bourne; B Van Calster
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2015-01-09       Impact factor: 6.317

7.  Assessing the performance of prediction models: a framework for traditional and novel measures.

Authors:  Ewout W Steyerberg; Andrew J Vickers; Nancy R Cook; Thomas Gerds; Mithat Gonen; Nancy Obuchowski; Michael J Pencina; Michael W Kattan
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 4.822

8.  Updating methods improved the performance of a clinical prediction model in new patients.

Authors:  K J M Janssen; K G M Moons; C J Kalkman; D E Grobbee; Y Vergouwe
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2007-11-26       Impact factor: 6.437

9.  Effect of changes over time in the performance of a customized SAPS-II model on the quality of care assessment.

Authors:  Lilian Minne; Saeid Eslami; Nicolette de Keizer; Evert de Jonge; Sophia E de Rooij; Ameen Abu-Hanna
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2011-10-28       Impact factor: 17.440

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

Authors:  Sharon E Davis; Thomas A Lasko; Guanhua Chen; Edward D Siew; Michael E Matheny
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2017-11-01       Impact factor: 4.497

View more
  5 in total

1.  Maintaining a National Acute Kidney Injury Risk Prediction Model to Support Local Quality Benchmarking.

Authors:  Sharon E Davis; Jeremiah R Brown; Chad Dorn; Dax Westerman; Richard J Solomon; Michael E Matheny
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes       Date:  2022-08-12

2.  Systematic Review of Approaches to Preserve Machine Learning Performance in the Presence of Temporal Dataset Shift in Clinical Medicine.

Authors:  Lin Lawrence Guo; Stephen R Pfohl; Jason Fries; Jose Posada; Scott Lanyon Fleming; Catherine Aftandilian; Nigam Shah; Lillian Sung
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2021-09-01       Impact factor: 2.762

3.  Risk Prediction of Pancreatic Cancer in Patients With Recent-onset Hyperglycemia: A Machine-learning Approach.

Authors:  Wansu Chen; Rebecca K Butler; Eva Lustigova; Suresh T Chari; Anirban Maitra; Jo A Rinaudo; Bechien U Wu
Journal:  J Clin Gastroenterol       Date:  2022-04-21       Impact factor: 3.174

4.  Development and Assessment of an Interpretable Machine Learning Triage Tool for Estimating Mortality After Emergency Admissions.

Authors:  Feng Xie; Marcus Eng Hock Ong; Johannes Nathaniel Min Hui Liew; Kenneth Boon Kiat Tan; Andrew Fu Wah Ho; Gayathri Devi Nadarajan; Lian Leng Low; Yu Heng Kwan; Benjamin Alan Goldstein; David Bruce Matchar; Bibhas Chakraborty; Nan Liu
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2021-08-02

5.  Open questions and research gaps for monitoring and updating AI-enabled tools in clinical settings.

Authors:  Sharon E Davis; Colin G Walsh; Michael E Matheny
Journal:  Front Digit Health       Date:  2022-09-02
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.