Yizhe Xu

Michael Wornow, Yizhe Xu, Rahul Thapa et al. · stanford

The successes of foundation models such as ChatGPT and AlphaFold have spurred significant interest in building similar models for electronic medical records (EMRs) to improve patient care and hospital operations. However, recent hype has obscured critical gaps in our understanding of these models' capabilities. We review over 80 foundation models trained on non-imaging EMR data (i.e. clinical text and/or structured data) and create a taxonomy delineating their architectures, training data, and potential use cases. We find that most models are trained on small, narrowly-scoped clinical datasets (e.g. MIMIC-III) or broad, public biomedical corpora (e.g. PubMed) and are evaluated on tasks that do not provide meaningful insights on their usefulness to health systems. In light of these findings, we propose an improved evaluation framework for measuring the benefits of clinical foundation models that is more closely grounded to metrics that matter in healthcare.

Ethan Steinberg, Jason Fries, Yizhe Xu et al.

We present a self-supervised, time-to-event (TTE) foundation model called MOTOR (Many Outcome Time Oriented Representations) which is pretrained on timestamped sequences of events in electronic health records (EHR) and health insurance claims. TTE models are used for estimating the probability distribution of the time until a specific event occurs, which is an important task in medical settings. TTE models provide many advantages over classification using fixed time horizons, including naturally handling censored observations, but are challenging to train with limited labeled data. MOTOR addresses this challenge by pretraining on up to 55M patient records (9B clinical events). We evaluate MOTOR's transfer learning performance on 19 tasks, across 3 patient databases (a private EHR system, MIMIC-IV, and Merative claims data). Task-specific models adapted from MOTOR improve time-dependent C statistics by 4.6% over state-of-the-art, improve label efficiency by up to 95% ,and are more robust to temporal distributional shifts. We further evaluate cross-site portability by adapting our MOTOR foundation model for six prediction tasks on the MIMIC-IV dataset, where it outperforms all baselines. MOTOR is the first foundation model for medical TTE predictions and we release a 143M parameter pretrained model for research use at [redacted URL].

Stephen R. Pfohl, Yizhe Xu, Agata Foryciarz et al.

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.

Stephen R. Pfohl, Haoran Zhang, Yizhe Xu et al.

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 data collection techniques that increase the effective sample size or reduce the level of noise in the prediction problem.