Stability of clinical prediction models developed using statistical or machine learning methods

Clinical prediction models estimate an individual's risk of a particular health outcome, conditional on their values of multiple predictors. A developed model is a consequence of the development dataset and the chosen model building strategy, including the sample size, number of predictors and analysis method (e.g., regression or machine learning). Here, we raise the concern that many models are developed using small datasets that lead to instability in the model and its predictions (estimated risks). We define four levels of model stability in estimated risks moving from the overall mean to the individual level. Then, through simulation and case studies of statistical and machine learning approaches, we show instability in a model's estimated risks is often considerable, and ultimately manifests itself as miscalibration of predictions in new data. Therefore, we recommend researchers should always examine instability at the model development stage and propose instability plots and measures to do so. This entails repeating the model building steps (those used in the development of the original prediction model) in each of multiple (e.g., 1000) bootstrap samples, to produce multiple bootstrap models, and then deriving (i) a prediction instability plot of bootstrap model predictions (y-axis) versus original model predictions (x-axis), (ii) a calibration instability plot showing calibration curves for the bootstrap models in the original sample; and (iii) the instability index, which is the mean absolute difference between individuals' original and bootstrap model predictions. A case study is used to illustrate how these instability assessments help reassure (or not) whether model predictions are likely to be reliable (or not), whilst also informing a model's critical appraisal (risk of bias rating), fairness assessment and further validation requirements.

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

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 developing an international consensus framework for transparent, replicable, ethical and effective research in artificial intelligence (AI-TREE) for health.