Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37604111›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2023

Evaluation of crowdsourced mortality prediction models as a framework for assessing artificial intelligence in medicine.

Timothy Bergquist, Thomas Schaffter, Yao Yan, Thomas Yu, Justin Prosser, Jifan Gao, Guanhua Chen, Łukasz Charzewski, Zofia Nawalany, Ivan Brugere and 12 more

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Fair prediction of 2-year stroke risk in patients with atrial fibrillation.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

22 authors.

Timothy BergquistSage Bionetworks, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-5614-8977
Thomas SchaffterSage Bionetworks, Seattle, WA, United States.
Yao YanSage Bionetworks, Seattle, WA, United States.
Thomas YuSage Bionetworks, Seattle, WA, United States.
Justin ProsserInstitute of Translational Health Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
Jifan GaoDepartment of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.
Guanhua ChenDepartment of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.
Łukasz CharzewskiProacta, Warsaw, Poland.
Zofia NawalanyProacta, Warsaw, Poland.
Ivan BrugereDepartment of Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States.
Renata RetkuteDepartment of Plant Sciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Alidivinas PrusokasPlant and Molecular Sciences, School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Augustinas PrusokasDepartment of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Yonghwa ChoiDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, College of Informatics, Korea University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Sanghoon LeeDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, College of Informatics, Korea University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Junseok ChoeDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, College of Informatics, Korea University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Inggeol LeeDepartment of Interdisciplinary Program in Bioinformatics, College of Informatics, Korea University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Sunkyu KimDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, College of Informatics, Korea University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-0240-6210
Jaewoo KangDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, College of Informatics, Korea University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-6798-9106
Sean D MooneyDepartment of Biomedical Informatics and Medical Education, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-2654-0833
Justin GuinneySage Bionetworks, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-1477-1888
Patient Mortality Prediction DREAM Challenge Consortium

Funding

Transform Dissemination and Implementation Science in CTSA ProgramsUL1TR002319 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI John K. Amory · 2017 to 2026
$100.0M
CD2H - The National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) IDeA CTR CollaborationU24TR002306 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI CHUTE, CHRISTOPHER G, EICHMANN, DAVID A. · 2017 to 2021
$28.9M
NCATS NIH HHS U24 TR002306NCATS NIH HHS U24TR002306NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002319NIH HHS U24TR002306
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveApplications of machine learning in healthcare are of high interest and have the potential to improve patient care. Yet, the real-world accuracy of these models in clinical practice and on different patient subpopulations remains unclear. To address these important questions, we hosted a community challenge to evaluate methods that predict healthcare outcomes. We focused on the prediction of all-cause mortality as the community challenge question. MATERIALS AND

methodsUsing a Model-to-Data framework, 345 registered participants, coalescing into 25 independent teams, spread over 3 continents and 10 countries, generated 25 accurate models all trained on a dataset of over 1.1 million patients and evaluated on patients prospectively collected over a 1-year observation of a large health system.

resultsThe top performing team achieved a final area under the receiver operator curve of 0.947 (95% CI, 0.942-0.951) and an area under the precision-recall curve of 0.487 (95% CI, 0.458-0.499) on a prospectively collected patient cohort. DISCUSSION: Post hoc analysis after the challenge revealed that models differ in accuracy on subpopulations, delineated by race or gender, even when they are trained on the same data.

conclusionThis is the largest community challenge focused on the evaluation of state-of-the-art machine learning methods in a healthcare system performed to date, revealing both opportunities and pitfalls of clinical AI.

Indexed as

CrowdsourcingMedicineAlgorithmsArtificial IntelligenceHumansMachine Learningevaluationhealth informaticsmachine learning

Identifiers

PMID37604111
PMCPMC10746301

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.