Instability in clinical risk stratification models using deep learning

While it has been well known in the ML community that deep learning models suffer from instability, the consequences for healthcare deployments are under characterised. We study the stability of different model architectures trained on electronic health records, using a set of outpatient prediction tasks as a case study. We show that repeated training runs of the same deep learning model on the same training data can result in significantly different outcomes at a patient level even though global performance metrics remain stable. We propose two stability metrics for measuring the effect of randomness of model training, as well as mitigation strategies for improving model stability.

Net benefit, calibration, threshold selection, and training objectives for algorithmic fairness in healthcare

A growing body of work uses the paradigm of algorithmic fairness to frame the development of techniques to anticipate and proactively mitigate the introduction or exacerbation of health inequities that may follow from the use of model-guided decision-making. We evaluate the interplay between measures of model performance, fairness, and the expected utility of decision-making to offer practical recommendations for the operationalization of algorithmic fairness principles for the development and evaluation of predictive models in healthcare. We conduct an empirical case-study via development of models to estimate the ten-year risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease to inform statin initiation in accordance with clinical practice guidelines. We demonstrate that approaches that incorporate fairness considerations into the model training objective typically do not improve model performance or confer greater net benefit for any of the studied patient populations compared to the use of standard learning paradigms followed by threshold selection concordant with patient preferences, evidence of intervention effectiveness, and model calibration. These results hold when the measured outcomes are not subject to differential measurement error across patient populations and threshold selection is unconstrained, regardless of whether differences in model performance metrics, such as in true and false positive error rates, are present. In closing, we argue for focusing model development efforts on developing calibrated models that predict outcomes well for all patient populations while emphasizing that such efforts are complementary to transparent reporting, participatory design, and reasoning about the impact of model-informed interventions in context.

A comparison of approaches to improve worst-case predictive model performance over patient subpopulations

Predictive models for clinical outcomes that are accurate on average in a patient population may underperform drastically for some subpopulations, potentially introducing or reinforcing inequities in care access and quality. Model training approaches that aim to maximize worst-case model performance across subpopulations, such as distributionally robust optimization (DRO), attempt to address this problem without introducing additional harms. We conduct a large-scale empirical study of DRO and several variations of standard learning procedures to identify approaches for model development and selection that consistently improve disaggregated and worst-case performance over subpopulations compared to standard approaches for learning predictive models from electronic health records data. In the course of our evaluation, we introduce an extension to DRO approaches that allows for specification of the metric used to assess worst-case performance. We conduct the analysis for models that predict in-hospital mortality, prolonged length of stay, and 30-day readmission for inpatient admissions, and predict in-hospital mortality using intensive care data. We find that, with relatively few exceptions, no approach performs better, for each patient subpopulation examined, than standard learning procedures using the entire training dataset. These results imply that when it is of interest to improve model performance for patient subpopulations beyond what can be achieved with standard practices, it may be necessary to do so via techniques that implicitly or explicitly increase the effective sample size.

Trove: Ontology-driven weak supervision for medical entity classification

Motivation: Recognizing named entities (NER) and their associated attributes like negation are core tasks in natural language processing. However, manually labeling data for entity tasks is time consuming and expensive, creating barriers to using machine learning in new medical applications. Weakly supervised learning, which automatically builds imperfect training sets from low cost, less accurate labeling rules, offers a potential solution. Medical ontologies are compelling sources for generating labels, however combining multiple ontologies without ground truth data creates challenges due to label noise introduced by conflicting entity definitions. Key questions remain on the extent to which weakly supervised entity classification can be automated using ontologies, or how much additional task-specific rule engineering is required for state-of-the-art performance. Also unclear is how pre-trained language models, such as BioBERT, improve the ability to generalize from imperfectly labeled data. Results: We present Trove, a framework for weakly supervised entity classification using medical ontologies. We report state-of-the-art, weakly supervised performance on two NER benchmark datasets and establish new baselines for two entity classification tasks in clinical text. We perform within an average of 3.5 F1 points (4.2%) of NER classifiers trained with hand-labeled data. Automatically learning label source accuracies to correct for label noise provided an average improvement of 3.9 F1 points. BioBERT provided an average improvement of 0.9 F1 points. We measure the impact of combining large numbers of ontologies and present a case study on rapidly building classifiers for COVID-19 clinical tasks. Our framework demonstrates how a wide range of medical entity classifiers can be quickly constructed using weak supervision and without requiring manually-labeled training data.

An Empirical Characterization of Fair Machine Learning For Clinical Risk Prediction

The use of machine learning to guide clinical decision making has the potential to worsen existing health disparities. Several recent works frame the problem as that of algorithmic fairness, a framework that has attracted considerable attention and criticism. However, the appropriateness of this framework is unclear due to both ethical as well as technical considerations, the latter of which include trade-offs between measures of fairness and model performance that are not well-understood for predictive models of clinical outcomes. To inform the ongoing debate, we conduct an empirical study to characterize the impact of penalizing group fairness violations on an array of measures of model performance and group fairness. We repeat the analyses across multiple observational healthcare databases, clinical outcomes, and sensitive attributes. We find that procedures that penalize differences between the distributions of predictions across groups induce nearly-universal degradation of multiple performance metrics within groups. On examining the secondary impact of these procedures, we observe heterogeneity of the effect of these procedures on measures of fairness in calibration and ranking across experimental conditions. Beyond the reported trade-offs, we emphasize that analyses of algorithmic fairness in healthcare lack the contextual grounding and causal awareness necessary to reason about the mechanisms that lead to health disparities, as well as about the potential of algorithmic fairness methods to counteract those mechanisms. In light of these limitations, we encourage researchers building predictive models for clinical use to step outside the algorithmic fairness frame and engage critically with the broader sociotechnical context surrounding the use of machine learning in healthcare.

Language Models Are An Effective Patient Representation Learning Technique For Electronic Health Record Data

Widespread adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) has fueled development of clinical outcome models using machine learning. However, patient EHR data are complex, and how to optimally represent them is an open question. This complexity, along with often small training set sizes available to train these clinical outcome models, are two core challenges for training high quality models. In this paper, we demonstrate that learning generic representations from the data of all the patients in the EHR enables better performing prediction models for clinical outcomes, allowing for these challenges to be overcome. We adapt common representation learning techniques used in other domains and find that representations inspired by language models enable a 3.5% mean improvement in AUROC on five clinical outcomes compared to standard baselines, with the average improvement rising to 19% when only a small number of patients are available for training a prediction model for a given clinical outcome.

Counterfactual Reasoning for Fair Clinical Risk Prediction

The use of machine learning systems to support decision making in healthcare raises questions as to what extent these systems may introduce or exacerbate disparities in care for historically underrepresented and mistreated groups, due to biases implicitly embedded in observational data in electronic health records. To address this problem in the context of clinical risk prediction models, we develop an augmented counterfactual fairness criteria to extend the group fairness criteria of equalized odds to an individual level. We do so by requiring that the same prediction be made for a patient, and a counterfactual patient resulting from changing a sensitive attribute, if the factual and counterfactual outcomes do not differ. We investigate the extent to which the augmented counterfactual fairness criteria may be applied to develop fair models for prolonged inpatient length of stay and mortality with observational electronic health records data. As the fairness criteria is ill-defined without knowledge of the data generating process, we use a variational autoencoder to perform counterfactual inference in the context of an assumed causal graph. While our technique provides a means to trade off maintenance of fairness with reduction in predictive performance in the context of a learned generative model, further work is needed to assess the generality of this approach.

A Semi-Supervised Machine Learning Approach to Detecting Recurrent Metastatic Breast Cancer Cases Using Linked Cancer Registry and Electronic Medical Record Data

Objectives: Most cancer data sources lack information on metastatic recurrence. Electronic medical records (EMRs) and population-based cancer registries contain complementary information on cancer treatment and outcomes, yet are rarely used synergistically. To enable detection of metastatic breast cancer (MBC), we applied a semi-supervised machine learning framework to linked EMR-California Cancer Registry (CCR) data. Materials and Methods: We studied 11,459 female patients treated at Stanford Health Care who received an incident breast cancer diagnosis from 2000-2014. The dataset consisted of structured data and unstructured free-text clinical notes from EMR, linked to CCR, a component of the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database. We extracted information on metastatic disease from patient notes to infer a class label and then trained a regularized logistic regression model for MBC classification. We evaluated model performance on a gold standard set of set of 146 patients. Results: There are 495 patients with de novo stage IV MBC, 1,374 patients initially diagnosed with Stage 0-III disease had recurrent MBC, and 9,590 had no evidence of metastatis. The median follow-up time is 96.3 months (mean 97.8, standard deviation 46.7). The best-performing model incorporated both EMR and CCR features. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve=0.925 [95% confidence interval: 0.880-0.969], sensitivity=0.861, specificity=0.878 and overall accuracy=0.870. Discussion and Conclusion: A framework for MBC case detection combining EMR and CCR data achieved good sensitivity, specificity and discrimination without requiring expert-labeled examples. This approach enables population-based research on how patients die from cancer and may identify novel predictors of cancer recurrence.

Predicting Inpatient Discharge Prioritization With Electronic Health Records

Identifying patients who will be discharged within 24 hours can improve hospital resource management and quality of care. We studied this problem using eight years of Electronic Health Records (EHR) data from Stanford Hospital. We fit models to predict 24 hour discharge across the entire inpatient population. The best performing models achieved an area under the receiver-operator characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.85 and an AUPRC of 0.53 on a held out test set. This model was also well calibrated. Finally, we analyzed the utility of this model in a decision theoretic framework to identify regions of ROC space in which using the model increases expected utility compared to the trivial always negative or always positive classifiers.

The Effectiveness of Multitask Learning for Phenotyping with Electronic Health Records Data

Electronic phenotyping is the task of ascertaining whether an individual has a medical condition of interest by analyzing their medical record and is foundational in clinical informatics. Increasingly, electronic phenotyping is performed via supervised learning. We investigate the effectiveness of multitask learning for phenotyping using electronic health records (EHR) data. Multitask learning aims to improve model performance on a target task by jointly learning additional auxiliary tasks and has been used in disparate areas of machine learning. However, its utility when applied to EHR data has not been established, and prior work suggests that its benefits are inconsistent. We present experiments that elucidate when multitask learning with neural nets improves performance for phenotyping using EHR data relative to neural nets trained for a single phenotype and to well-tuned logistic regression baselines. We find that multitask neural nets consistently outperform single-task neural nets for rare phenotypes but underperform for relatively more common phenotypes. The effect size increases as more auxiliary tasks are added. Moreover, multitask learning reduces the sensitivity of neural nets to hyperparameter settings for rare phenotypes. Last, we quantify phenotype complexity and find that neural nets trained with or without multitask learning do not improve on simple baselines unless the phenotypes are sufficiently complex.