Literature DB >> 32935131

Reporting of demographic data and representativeness in machine learning models using electronic health records.

Selen Bozkurt1, Eli M Cahan1,2, Martin G Seneviratne1, Ran Sun1, Juan A Lossio-Ventura1, John P A Ioannidis1,3,4,5,6, Tina Hernandez-Boussard1,4,7.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The development of machine learning (ML) algorithms to address a variety of issues faced in clinical practice has increased rapidly. However, questions have arisen regarding biases in their development that can affect their applicability in specific populations. We sought to evaluate whether studies developing ML models from electronic health record (EHR) data report sufficient demographic data on the study populations to demonstrate representativeness and reproducibility.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched PubMed for articles applying ML models to improve clinical decision-making using EHR data. We limited our search to papers published between 2015 and 2019.
RESULTS: Across the 164 studies reviewed, demographic variables were inconsistently reported and/or included as model inputs. Race/ethnicity was not reported in 64%; gender and age were not reported in 24% and 21% of studies, respectively. Socioeconomic status of the population was not reported in 92% of studies. Studies that mentioned these variables often did not report if they were included as model inputs. Few models (12%) were validated using external populations. Few studies (17%) open-sourced their code. Populations in the ML studies include higher proportions of White and Black yet fewer Hispanic subjects compared to the general US population. DISCUSSION: The demographic characteristics of study populations are poorly reported in the ML literature based on EHR data. Demographic representativeness in training data and model transparency is necessary to ensure that ML models are deployed in an equitable and reproducible manner. Wider adoption of reporting guidelines is warranted to improve representativeness and reproducibility.
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Keywords:  clinical decision support, bias, transparency; demographic data; electronic health record; machine learning

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32935131      PMCID: PMC7727384          DOI: 10.1093/jamia/ocaa164

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


  29 in total

Review 1.  Opportunities and challenges in developing risk prediction models with electronic health records data: a systematic review.

Authors:  Benjamin A Goldstein; Ann Marie Navar; Michael J Pencina; John P A Ioannidis
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2016-05-17       Impact factor: 4.497

2.  Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations.

Authors:  Ziad Obermeyer; Brian Powers; Christine Vogeli; Sendhil Mullainathan
Journal:  Science       Date:  2019-10-25       Impact factor: 47.728

3.  Potential Biases in Machine Learning Algorithms Using Electronic Health Record Data.

Authors:  Milena A Gianfrancesco; Suzanne Tamang; Jinoos Yazdany; Gabriela Schmajuk
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2018-11-01       Impact factor: 21.873

4.  Caveats for the use of operational electronic health record data in comparative effectiveness research.

Authors:  William R Hersh; Mark G Weiner; Peter J Embi; Judith R Logan; Philip R O Payne; Elmer V Bernstam; Harold P Lehmann; George Hripcsak; Timothy H Hartzog; James J Cimino; Joel H Saltz
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 2.983

5.  PROBAST: A Tool to Assess Risk of Bias and Applicability of Prediction Model Studies: Explanation and Elaboration.

Authors:  Karel G M Moons; Robert F Wolff; Richard D Riley; Penny F Whiting; Marie Westwood; Gary S Collins; Johannes B Reitsma; Jos Kleijnen; Sue Mallett
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2019-01-01       Impact factor: 25.391

6.  Multivariate analysis of the population representativeness of related clinical studies.

Authors:  Zhe He; Patrick Ryan; Julia Hoxha; Shuang Wang; Simona Carini; Ida Sim; Chunhua Weng
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2016-01-25       Impact factor: 6.317

Review 7.  Methodological standards for the development and evaluation of clinical prediction rules: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Laura E Cowley; Daniel M Farewell; Sabine Maguire; Alison M Kemp
Journal:  Diagn Progn Res       Date:  2019-08-22

8.  External validation of clinical prediction models using big datasets from e-health records or IPD meta-analysis: opportunities and challenges.

Authors:  Richard D Riley; Joie Ensor; Kym I E Snell; Thomas P A Debray; Doug G Altman; Karel G M Moons; Gary S Collins
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2016-06-22

9.  Better medicine through machine learning: What's real, and what's artificial?

Authors:  Suchi Saria; Atul Butte; Aziz Sheikh
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2018-12-31       Impact factor: 11.069

10.  Presenting machine learning model information to clinical end users with model facts labels.

Authors:  Mark P Sendak; Michael Gao; Nathan Brajer; Suresh Balu
Journal:  NPJ Digit Med       Date:  2020-03-23
View more
  7 in total

1.  Digital twins for predictive oncology will be a paradigm shift for precision cancer care.

Authors:  Tina Hernandez-Boussard; Paul Macklin; Emily J Greenspan; Amy L Gryshuk; Eric Stahlberg; Tanveer Syeda-Mahmood; Ilya Shmulevich
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  2021-12       Impact factor: 87.241

Review 2.  Evaluation and Mitigation of Racial Bias in Clinical Machine Learning Models: Scoping Review.

Authors:  Jonathan Huang; Galal Galal; Mozziyar Etemadi; Mahesh Vaidyanathan
Journal:  JMIR Med Inform       Date:  2022-05-31

Review 3.  Comparison of Severity of Illness Scores and Artificial Intelligence Models That Are Predictive of Intensive Care Unit Mortality: Meta-analysis and Review of the Literature.

Authors:  Cristina Barboi; Andreas Tzavelis; Lutfiyya NaQiyba Muhammad
Journal:  JMIR Med Inform       Date:  2022-05-31

4.  Opioid2MME: Standardizing opioid prescriptions to morphine milligram equivalents from electronic health records.

Authors:  Juan Antonio Lossio-Ventura; Wenyu Song; Michael Sainlaire; Patricia C Dykes; Tina Hernandez-Boussard
Journal:  Int J Med Inform       Date:  2022-03-16       Impact factor: 4.730

Review 5.  Review of study reporting guidelines for clinical studies using artificial intelligence in healthcare.

Authors:  Susan Cheng Shelmerdine; Owen J Arthurs; Alastair Denniston; Neil J Sebire
Journal:  BMJ Health Care Inform       Date:  2021-08

6.  Assessment of Adherence to Reporting Guidelines by Commonly Used Clinical Prediction Models From a Single Vendor: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Jonathan H Lu; Alison Callahan; Birju S Patel; Keith E Morse; Dev Dash; Michael A Pfeffer; Nigam H Shah
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2022-08-01

7.  Augmenting Kalman Filter Machine Learning Models with Data from OCT to Predict Future Visual Field Loss: An Analysis Using Data from the African Descent and Glaucoma Evaluation Study and the Diagnostic Innovation in Glaucoma Study.

Authors:  Mohammad Zhalechian; Mark P Van Oyen; Mariel S Lavieri; Carlos Gustavo De Moraes; Christopher A Girkin; Massimo A Fazio; Robert N Weinreb; Christopher Bowd; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Linda M Zangwill; Christopher A Andrews; Joshua D Stein
Journal:  Ophthalmol Sci       Date:  2021-12-21
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.