MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3173445857 · doi:10.1101/2021.06.17.21259092

Evaluation of Domain Generalization and Adaptation on Improving Model Robustness to Temporal Dataset Shift in Clinical Medicine

2021· preprint· en· W3173445857 on OpenAlexaff
Lin Lawrence Guo, Stephen Pfohl, Jason Fries, Alistair E. W. Johnson, Jose Posada, Catherine Aftandilian, Nigam H. Shah, Lillian Sung

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceRobustness (evolution)Receiver operating characteristicFalse positive paradoxMachine learningPredictive modellingData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Importance Temporal dataset shift associated with changes in healthcare over time is a barrier to deploying machine learning-based clinical decision support systems. Algorithms that learn robust models by estimating invariant properties across time periods for domain generalization (DG) and unsupervised domain adaptation (UDA) might be suitable to proactively mitigate dataset shift. Objective To characterize the impact of temporal dataset shift on clinical prediction models and benchmark DG and UDA algorithms on improving model robustness. Design, Setting, and Participants In this cohort study, intensive care unit patients from the MIMIC-IV database were categorized by year groups (2008–2010, 2011–2013, 2014–2016 and 2017–2019). Tasks were predicting mortality, long length of stay, sepsis and invasive ventilation. Feedforward neural networks were used as prediction models. The baseline experiment trained models using empirical risk minimization (ERM) on 2008–2010 (ERM[08-10]) and evaluated them on subsequent year groups. DG experiment trained models using algorithms that estimated invariant properties using 2008–2016 and evaluated them on 2017– 2019. UDA experiment leveraged unlabelled samples from 2017–2019 for unsupervised distribution matching. DG and UDA models were compared to ERM[08-16] models trained using 2008-2016. Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s) Main performance measures were area-under-the-receiver-operating-characteristic curve (AUROC), area-under-the-precision-recall curve and absolute calibration error. Threshold-based metrics including false-positives and false-negatives were used to assess the clinical impact of temporal dataset shift and its mitigation strategies. Results In the baseline experiments, dataset shift was most evident for sepsis prediction (maximum AUROC drop, 0.090; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.080-0.101). Considering a scenario of 100 consecutively admitted patients showed that ERM[08-10] applied to 2017-2019 was associated with one additional false-negative among 11 patients with sepsis, when compared to the model applied to 2008-2010. When compared with ERM[08-16], DG and UDA experiments failed to produce more robust models (range of AUROC difference, −0.003-0.050). Conclusions and Relevance DG and UDA failed to produce more robust models compared to ERM in the setting of temporal dataset shift. Alternate approaches are required to preserve model performance over time in clinical medicine. KEY POINTS Question Can algorithms that estimate invariant properties across environments for domain generalization and unsupervised domain adaptation improve the robustness of machine learning-derived clinical prediction models to temporal dataset shift? Findings In this cohort study using 4 clinical outcomes, domain generalization and unsupervised domain adaptation algorithms did not meaningfully outperform the standard model training algorithm – empirical risk minimization – in learning robust models that generalize over time in the presence of temporal dataset shift. Meaning These findings highlight the difficulty of improving robustness to dataset shift with purely data-driven techniques that do not leverage prior knowledge of the nature of the shift and the requirement of alternate approaches to preserve model performance over time in clinical medicine.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.391
Threshold uncertainty score0.801

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.151
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicMachine Learning in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207