Showing 1–3 of 3 results for author: Mateen, B A

Model updating after interventions paradoxically introduces bias

Authors: James Liley, Samuel R Emerson, Bilal A Mateen, Catalina A Vallejos, Louis J M Aslett, Sebastian J Vollmer

Abstract: Machine learning is increasingly being used to generate prediction models for use in a number of real-world settings, from credit risk assessment to clinical decision support. Recent discussions have highlighted potential problems in the updating of a predictive score for a binary outcome when an existing predictive score forms part of the standard workflow, driving interventions. In this setting,… ▽ More Machine learning is increasingly being used to generate prediction models for use in a number of real-world settings, from credit risk assessment to clinical decision support. Recent discussions have highlighted potential problems in the updating of a predictive score for a binary outcome when an existing predictive score forms part of the standard workflow, driving interventions. In this setting, the existing score induces an additional causative pathway which leads to miscalibration when the original score is replaced. We propose a general causal framework to describe and address this problem, and demonstrate an equivalent formulation as a partially observed Markov decision process. We use this model to demonstrate the impact of such `naive updating' when performed repeatedly. Namely, we show that successive predictive scores may converge to a point where they predict their own effect, or may eventually tend toward a stable oscillation between two values, and we argue that neither outcome is desirable. Furthermore, we demonstrate that even if model-fitting procedures improve, actual performance may worsen. We complement these findings with a discussion of several potential routes to overcome these issues. △ Less

Submitted 22 February, 2021; v1 submitted 22 October, 2020; originally announced October 2020.

Comments: Sections of this preprint on 'Successive adjuvancy' (section 4, theorem 2, figures 4,5, and associated discussions) were not included in the originally submitted version of this paper due to length. This material does not appear in the published version of this manuscript, and the reader should be aware that these sections did not undergo peer review

Machine learning and AI research for Patient Benefit: 20 Critical Questions on Transparency, Replicability, Ethics and Effectiveness

Authors: Sebastian Vollmer, Bilal A. Mateen, Gergo Bohner, Franz J Király, Rayid Ghani, Pall Jonsson, Sarah Cumbers, Adrian Jonas, Katherine S. L. McAllister, Puja Myles, David Granger, Mark Birse, Richard Branson, Karel GM Moons, Gary S Collins, John P. A. Ioannidis, Chris Holmes, Harry Hemingway

Abstract: Machine learning (ML), artificial intelligence (AI) and other modern statistical methods are providing new opportunities to operationalize previously untapped and rapidly growing sources of data for patient benefit. Whilst there is a lot of promising research currently being undertaken, the literature as a whole lacks: transparency; clear reporting to facilitate replicability; exploration for pote… ▽ More Machine learning (ML), artificial intelligence (AI) and other modern statistical methods are providing new opportunities to operationalize previously untapped and rapidly growing sources of data for patient benefit. Whilst there is a lot of promising research currently being undertaken, the literature as a whole lacks: transparency; clear reporting to facilitate replicability; exploration for potential ethical concerns; and, clear demonstrations of effectiveness. There are many reasons for why these issues exist, but one of the most important that we provide a preliminary solution for here is the current lack of ML/AI- specific best practice guidance. Although there is no consensus on what best practice looks in this field, we believe that interdisciplinary groups pursuing research and impact projects in the ML/AI for health domain would benefit from answering a series of questions based on the important issues that exist when undertaking work of this nature. Here we present 20 questions that span the entire project life cycle, from inception, data analysis, and model evaluation, to implementation, as a means to facilitate project planning and post-hoc (structured) independent evaluation. By beginning to answer these questions in different settings, we can start to understand what constitutes a good answer, and we expect that the resulting discussion will be central to develo** an international consensus framework for transparent, replicable, ethical and effective research in artificial intelligence (AI-TREE) for health. △ Less

Submitted 21 December, 2018; originally announced December 2018.

Comments: 25 pages, 2 boxes, 1 figure

MSC Class: 68T01

Machine Learning in Falls Prediction; A cognition-based predictor of falls for the acute neurological in-patient population

Authors: Bilal A. Mateen, Matthias Bussas, Catherine Doogan, Denise Waller, Alessia Saverino, Franz J Király, E Diane Playford

Abstract: Background Information: Falls are associated with high direct and indirect costs, and significant morbidity and mortality for patients. Pathological falls are usually a result of a compromised motor system, and/or cognition. Very little research has been conducted on predicting falls based on this premise. Aims: To demonstrate that cognitive and motor tests can be used to create a robust predict… ▽ More Background Information: Falls are associated with high direct and indirect costs, and significant morbidity and mortality for patients. Pathological falls are usually a result of a compromised motor system, and/or cognition. Very little research has been conducted on predicting falls based on this premise. Aims: To demonstrate that cognitive and motor tests can be used to create a robust predictive tool for falls. Methods: Three tests of attention and executive function (Stroop, Trail Making, and Semantic Fluency), a measure of physical function (Walk-12), a series of questions (concerning recent falls, surgery and physical function) and demographic information were collected from a cohort of 323 patients at a tertiary neurological center. The principal outcome was a fall during the in-patient stay (n = 54). Data-driven, predictive modelling was employed to identify the statistical modelling strategies which are most accurate in predicting falls, and which yield the most parsimonious models of clinical relevance. Results: The Trail test was identified as the best predictor of falls. Moreover, addition of any others variables, to the results of the Trail test did not improve the prediction (Wilcoxon signed-rank p < .001). The best statistical strategy for predicting falls was the random forest (Wilcoxon signed-rank p < .001), based solely on results of the Trail test. Tuning of the model results in the following optimized values: 68% (+- 7.7) sensitivity, 90% (+- 2.3) specificity, with a positive predictive value of 60%, when the relevant data is available. Conclusion: Predictive modelling has identified a simple yet powerful machine learning prediction strategy based on a single clinical test, the Trail test. Predictive evaluation shows this strategy to be robust, suggesting predictive modelling and machine learning as the standard for future predictive tools. △ Less

Submitted 5 July, 2016; originally announced July 2016.