MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396636615 · doi:10.2196/50437

Considerations for Quality Control Monitoring of Machine Learning Models in Clinical Practice

2024· article· en· W4396636615 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Louis Faust, Patrick M. Wilson, Shusaku Asai, Sunyang Fu, Hongfang Liu, Xiaoyang Ruan, Curt Storlie

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering
KeywordsQuality (philosophy)Computer scienceControl (management)MedicineMachine learningArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Integrating machine learning (ML) models into clinical practice presents a challenge of maintaining their efficacy over time. While existing literature offers valuable strategies for detecting declining model performance, there is a need to document the broader challenges and solutions associated with the real-world development and integration of model monitoring solutions. This work details the development and use of a platform for monitoring the performance of a production-level ML model operating in Mayo Clinic. In this paper, we aimed to provide a series of considerations and guidelines necessary for integrating such a platform into a team's technical infrastructure and workflow. We have documented our experiences with this integration process, discussed the broader challenges encountered with real-world implementation and maintenance, and included the source code for the platform. Our monitoring platform was built as an R shiny application, developed and implemented over the course of 6 months. The platform has been used and maintained for 2 years and is still in use as of July 2023. The considerations necessary for the implementation of the monitoring platform center around 4 pillars: feasibility (what resources can be used for platform development?); design (through what statistics or models will the model be monitored, and how will these results be efficiently displayed to the end user?); implementation (how will this platform be built, and where will it exist within the IT ecosystem?); and policy (based on monitoring feedback, when and what actions will be taken to fix problems, and how will these problems be translated to clinical staff?). While much of the literature surrounding ML performance monitoring emphasizes methodological approaches for capturing changes in performance, there remains a battery of other challenges and considerations that must be addressed for successful real-world implementation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.303
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.579
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.697
Threshold uncertainty score0.859

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3030.579
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0190.014
Open science0.0080.006
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.350 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations13
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicMachine Learning in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207