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

Importance: Various model reporting guidelines have been proposed to ensure clinical prediction models are reliable and fair. However, no consensus exists about which model details are essential to report, and commonalities and differences among reporting guidelines have not been characterized. Furthermore, how well documentation of deployed models adheres to these guidelines has not been studied. Objectives: To assess information requested by model reporting guidelines and whether the documentation for commonly used machine learning models developed by a single vendor provides the information requested. Evidence Review: MEDLINE was queried using machine learning model card and reporting machine learning from November 4 to December 6, 2020. References were reviewed to find additional publications, and publications without specific reporting recommendations were excluded. Similar elements requested for reporting were merged into representative items. Four independent reviewers and 1 adjudicator assessed how often documentation for the most commonly used models developed by a single vendor reported the items. Findings: From 15 model reporting guidelines, 220 unique items were identified that represented the collective reporting requirements. Although 12 items were commonly requested (requested by 10 or more guidelines), 77 items were requested by just 1 guideline. Documentation for 12 commonly used models from a single vendor reported a median of 39% (IQR, 37%-43%; range, 31%-47%) of items from the collective reporting requirements. Many of the commonly requested items had 100% reporting rates, including items concerning outcome definition, area under the receiver operating characteristics curve, internal validation, and intended clinical use. Several items reported half the time or less related to reliability, such as external validation, uncertainty measures, and strategy for handling missing data. Other frequently unreported items related to fairness (summary statistics and subgroup analyses, including for race and ethnicity or sex). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that consistent reporting recommendations for clinical predictive models are needed for model developers to share necessary information for model deployment. The many published guidelines would, collectively, require reporting more than 200 items. Model documentation from 1 vendor reported the most commonly requested items from model reporting guidelines. However, areas for improvement were identified in reporting items related to model reliability and fairness. This analysis led to feedback to the vendor, which motivated updates to the documentation for future users.

An open repository of real-time COVID-19 indicators.

The COVID-19 pandemic presented enormous data challenges in the United States. Policy makers, epidemiological modelers, and health researchers all require up-to-date data on the pandemic and relevant public behavior, ideally at fine spatial and temporal resolution. The COVIDcast API is our attempt to fill this need: Operational since April 2020, it provides open access to both traditional public health surveillance signals (cases, deaths, and hospitalizations) and many auxiliary indicators of COVID-19 activity, such as signals extracted from deidentified medical claims data, massive online surveys, cell phone mobility data, and internet search trends. These are available at a fine geographic resolution (mostly at the county level) and are updated daily. The COVIDcast API also tracks all revisions to historical data, allowing modelers to account for the frequent revisions and backfill that are common for many public health data sources. All of the data are available in a common format through the API and accompanying R and Python software packages. This paper describes the data sources and signals, and provides examples demonstrating that the auxiliary signals in the COVIDcast API present information relevant to tracking COVID activity, augmenting traditional public health reporting and empowering research and decision-making.

Assessment of Extractability and Accuracy of Electronic Health Record Data for Joint Implant Registries.

Importance: Implant registries provide valuable information on the performance of implants in a real-world setting, yet they have traditionally been expensive to establish and maintain. Electronic health records (EHRs) are widely used and may include the information needed to generate clinically meaningful reports similar to a formal implant registry. Objectives: To quantify the extractability and accuracy of registry-relevant data from the EHR and to assess the ability of these data to track trends in implant use and the durability of implants (hereafter referred to as implant survivorship), using data stored since 2000 in the EHR of the largest integrated health care system in the United States. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study of a large EHR of veterans who had 45 351 total hip arthroplasty procedures in Veterans Health Administration hospitals from 2000 to 2017. Data analysis was performed from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2017. Exposures: Total hip arthroplasty. Main Outcomes and Measures: Number of total hip arthroplasty procedures extracted from the EHR, trends in implant use, and relative survivorship of implants. Results: A total of 45 351 total hip arthroplasty procedures were identified from 2000 to 2017 with 192 805 implant parts. Data completeness improved over the time. After 2014, 85% of prosthetic heads, 91% of shells, 81% of stems, and 85% of liners used in the Veterans Health Administration health care system were identified by part number. Revision burden and trends in metal vs ceramic prosthetic femoral head use were found to reflect data from the American Joint Replacement Registry. Recalled implants were obvious negative outliers in implant survivorship using Kaplan-Meier curves. Conclusions and Relevance: Although loss to follow-up remains a challenge that requires additional attention to improve the quantitative nature of calculated implant survivorship, we conclude that data collected during routine clinical care and stored in the EHR of a large health system over 18 years were sufficient to provide clinically meaningful data on trends in implant use and to identify poor implants that were subsequently recalled. This automated approach was low cost and had no reporting burden. This low-cost, low-overhead method to assess implant use and performance within a large health care setting may be useful to internal quality assurance programs and, on a larger scale, to postmarket surveillance of implant performance.

An empirical characterization of fair machine learning for clinical risk prediction.

The use of machine learning to guide clinical decision making has the potential to worsen existing health disparities. Several recent works frame the problem as that of algorithmic fairness, a framework that has attracted considerable attention and criticism. However, the appropriateness of this framework is unclear due to both ethical as well as technical considerations, the latter of which include trade-offs between measures of fairness and model performance that are not well-understood for predictive models of clinical outcomes. To inform the ongoing debate, we conduct an empirical study to characterize the impact of penalizing group fairness violations on an array of measures of model performance and group fairness. We repeat the analysis across multiple observational healthcare databases, clinical outcomes, and sensitive attributes. We find that procedures that penalize differences between the distributions of predictions across groups induce nearly-universal degradation of multiple performance metrics within groups. On examining the secondary impact of these procedures, we observe heterogeneity of the effect of these procedures on measures of fairness in calibration and ranking across experimental conditions. Beyond the reported trade-offs, we emphasize that analyses of algorithmic fairness in healthcare lack the contextual grounding and causal awareness necessary to reason about the mechanisms that lead to health disparities, as well as about the potential of algorithmic fairness methods to counteract those mechanisms. In light of these limitations, we encourage researchers building predictive models for clinical use to step outside the algorithmic fairness frame and engage critically with the broader sociotechnical context surrounding the use of machine learning in healthcare.

Baseline phenotype and 30-day outcomes of people tested for COVID-19: an international network cohort including >3.32 million people tested with real-time PCR and >219,000 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in South Korea, Spain and the United States.

Early identification of symptoms and comorbidities most predictive of COVID-19 is critical to identify infection, guide policies to effectively contain the pandemic, and improve health systems' response. Here, we characterised socio-demographics and comorbidity in 3,316,107persons tested and 219,072 persons tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 since January 2020, and their key health outcomes in the month following the first positive test. Routine care data from primary care electronic health records (EHR) from Spain, hospital EHR from the United States (US), and claims data from South Korea and the US were used. The majority of study participants were women aged 18-65 years old. Positive/tested ratio varied greatly geographically (2.2:100 to 31.2:100) and over time (from 50:100 in February-April to 6.8:100 in May-June). Fever, cough and dyspnoea were the most common symptoms at presentation. Between 4%-38% required admission and 1-10.5% died within a month from their first positive test. Observed disparity in testing practices led to variable baseline characteristics and outcomes, both nationally (US) and internationally. Our findings highlight the importance of large scale characterization of COVID-19 international cohorts to inform planning and resource allocation including testing as countries face a second wave.

Author Correction: Estimate the hidden deployment cost of predictive models to improve patient care.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

The number needed to benefit: estimating the value of predictive analytics in healthcare.

Predictive analytics in health care has generated increasing enthusiasm recently, as reflected in a rapidly growing body of predictive models reported in literature and in real-time embedded models using electronic health record data. However, estimating the benefit of applying any single model to a specific clinical problem remains challenging today. Developing a shared framework for estimating model value is therefore critical to facilitate the effective, safe, and sustainable use of predictive tools into the future. We highlight key concepts within the prediction-action dyad that together are expected to impact model benefit. These include factors relevant to model prediction (including the number needed to screen) as well as those relevant to the subsequent action (number needed to treat). In the simplest terms, a number needed to benefit contextualizes the numbers needed to screen and treat, offering an opportunity to estimate the value of a clinical predictive model in action.

Predicting need for advanced illness or palliative care in a primary care population using electronic health record data.

Timely outreach to individuals in an advanced stage of illness offers opportunities to exercise decision control over health care. Predictive models built using Electronic health record (EHR) data are being explored as a way to anticipate such need with enough lead time for patient engagement. Prior studies have focused on hospitalized patients, who typically have more data available for predicting care needs. It is unclear if prediction driven outreach is feasible in the primary care setting. In this study, we apply predictive modeling to the primary care population of a large, regional health system and systematically examine the impact of technical choices, such as requiring a minimum number of health care encounters (data density requirements) and aggregating diagnosis codes using Clinical Classifications Software (CCS) groupings to reduce dimensionality, on model performance in terms of discrimination and positive predictive value. We assembled a cohort of 349,667 primary care patients between 65 and 90 years of age who sought care from Sutter Health between July 1, 2011 and June 30, 2014, of whom 2.1% died during the study period. EHR data comprising demographics, encounters, orders, and diagnoses for each patient from a 12 month observation window prior to the point when a prediction is made were extracted. L1 regularized logistic regression and gradient boosted tree models were fit to training data and tuned by cross validation. Model performance in predicting one year mortality was assessed using held-out test patients. Our experiments systematically varied three factors: model type, diagnosis coding, and data density requirements. We found substantial, consistent benefit from using gradient boosting vs logistic regression (mean AUROC over all other technical choices of 84.8% vs 80.7% respectively). There was no benefit from aggregation of ICD codes into CCS code groups (mean AUROC over all other technical choices of 82.9% vs 82.6% respectively). Likewise increasing data density requirements did not affect discrimination (mean AUROC over other technical choices ranged from 82.5% to 83%). We also examine model performance as a function of lead time, which is the interval between death and when a prediction was made. In subgroup analysis by lead time, mean AUROC over all other choices ranged from 87.9% for patients who died within 0 to 3 months to 83.6% for those who died 9 to 12 months after prediction time.

Using ontology-based annotation to profile disease research.

BACKGROUND: Profiling the allocation and trend of research activity is of interest to funding agencies, administrators, and researchers. However, the lack of a common classification system hinders the comprehensive and systematic profiling of research activities. This study introduces ontology-based annotation as a method to overcome this difficulty. Analyzing over a decade of funding data and publication data, the trends of disease research are profiled across topics, across institutions, and over time. RESULTS: This study introduces and explores the notions of research sponsorship and allocation and shows that leaders of research activity can be identified within specific disease areas of interest, such as those with high mortality or high sponsorship. The funding profiles of disease topics readily cluster themselves in agreement with the ontology hierarchy and closely mirror the funding agency priorities. Finally, four temporal trends are identified among research topics. CONCLUSIONS: This work utilizes disease ontology (DO)-based annotation to profile effectively the landscape of biomedical research activity. By using DO in this manner a use-case driven mechanism is also proposed to evaluate the utility of classification hierarchies.