Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40069422›Full record

ArticleCommunications medicine2025

Low responsiveness of machine learning models to critical or deteriorating health conditions.

Tanmoy Sarkar Pias, Sharmin Afrose, Moon Das Tuli, Ipsita Hamid Trisha, Xinwei Deng, Charles B Nemeroff, Danfeng Daphne Yao

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Communications medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Tanmoy Sarkar PiasDepartment of Computer Science and Sanghani Center for AI and Data Analytics, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA.
Sharmin AfroseComputer Science and Mathematics Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, USA.
Moon Das TuliGreenlife Medical College & Hospital, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Ipsita Hamid TrishaBanner University Medical Center, Tucson, AZ, USA.
Xinwei DengDepartment of Statistics, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA.
Charles B NemeroffDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School, Austin, TX, USA.
Danfeng Daphne YaoDepartment of Computer Science and Sanghani Center for AI and Data Analytics, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA. danfeng@vt.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8969-2792

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMachine learning (ML) based mortality prediction models can be immensely useful in intensive care units. Such a model should generate warnings to alert physicians when a patient's condition rapidly deteriorates, or their vitals are in highly abnormal ranges. Before clinical deployment, it is important to comprehensively assess a model's ability to recognize critical patient conditions.

methodsWe develop multiple medical ML testing approaches, including a gradient ascent method and neural activation map. We systematically assess these machine learning models' ability to respond to serious medical conditions using additional test cases, some of which are time series. Guided by medical doctors, our evaluation involves multiple machine learning models, resampling techniques, and four datasets for two clinical prediction tasks.

resultsWe identify serious deficiencies in the models' responsiveness, with the models being unable to recognize severely impaired medical conditions or rapidly deteriorating health. For in-hospital mortality prediction, the models tested using our synthesized cases fail to recognize 66% of the injuries. In some instances, the models fail to generate adequate mortality risk scores for all test cases. Our study identifies similar kinds of deficiencies in the responsiveness of 5-year breast and lung cancer prediction models.

conclusionsUsing generated test cases, we find that statistical machine-learning models trained solely from patient data are grossly insufficient and have many dangerous blind spots. Most of the ML models tested fail to respond adequately to critically ill patients. How to incorporate medical knowledge into clinical machine learning models is an important future research direction.

Identifiers

PMID40069422
PMCPMC11897252

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.