Grand rounds in methodology: key considerations for implementing machine learning solutions in quality improvement initiatives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Machine learning (ML) solutions are increasingly entering healthcare. They are complex, sociotechnical systems that include data inputs, ML models, technical infrastructure and human interactions. They have promise for improving care across a wide range of clinical applications but if poorly implemented, they may disrupt clinical workflows, exacerbate inequities in care and harm patients. Many aspects of ML solutions are similar to other digital technologies, which have well-established approaches to implementation. However, ML applications present distinct implementation challenges, given that their predictions are often complex and difficult to understand, they can be influenced by biases in the data sets used to develop them, and their impacts on human behaviour are poorly understood. This manuscript summarises the current state of knowledge about implementing ML solutions in clinical care and offers practical guidance for implementation. We propose three overarching questions for potential users to consider when deploying ML solutions in clinical care: (1) Is a clinical or operational problem likely to be addressed by an ML solution? (2) How can an ML solution be evaluated to determine its readiness for deployment? (3) How can an ML solution be deployed and maintained optimally? The Quality Improvement community has an essential role to play in ensuring that ML solutions are translated into clinical practice safely, effectively, and ethically.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.617 | 0.673 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.025 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.012 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".