Maarten van Smeden

Madhumita Sushil, Atul J. Butte, Ewoud Schuit et al.

Objective: Text mining of clinical notes embedded in electronic medical records is increasingly used to extract patient characteristics otherwise not or only partly available, to assess their association with relevant health outcomes. As manual data labeling needed to develop text mining models is resource intensive, we investigated whether off-the-shelf text mining models developed at external institutions, together with limited within-institution labeled data, could be used to reliably extract study variables to conduct association studies. Materials and Methods: We developed multiple text mining models on different combinations of within-institution and external-institution data to extract social factors from discharge reports of intensive care patients. Subsequently, we assessed the associations between social factors and having a do-not-resuscitate/intubate code. Results: Important differences were found between associations based on manually labeled data compared to text-mined social factors in three out of five cases. Adopting external-institution text mining models using manually labeled within-institution data resulted in models with higher F1-scores, but not in meaningfully different associations. Discussion: While text mining facilitated scaling analyses to larger samples leading to discovering a larger number of associations, the estimates may be unreliable. Confirmation is needed with better text mining models, ideally on a larger manually labeled dataset. Conclusion: The currently used text mining models were not sufficiently accurate to be used reliably in an association study. Model adaptation using within-institution data did not improve the estimates. Further research is needed to set conditions for reliable use of text mining in medical research.

Ben Van Calster, Gary S. Collins, Andrew J. Vickers et al.

A myriad of measures to illustrate performance of predictive artificial intelligence (AI) models have been proposed in the literature. Selecting appropriate performance measures is essential for predictive AI models that are developed to be used in medical practice, because poorly performing models may harm patients and lead to increased costs. We aim to assess the merits of classic and contemporary performance measures when validating predictive AI models for use in medical practice. We focus on models with a binary outcome. We discuss 32 performance measures covering five performance domains (discrimination, calibration, overall, classification, and clinical utility) along with accompanying graphical assessments. The first four domains cover statistical performance, the fifth domain covers decision-analytic performance. We explain why two key characteristics are important when selecting which performance measures to assess: (1) whether the measure's expected value is optimized when it is calculated using the correct probabilities (i.e., a "proper" measure), and (2) whether they reflect either purely statistical performance or decision-analytic performance by properly considering misclassification costs. Seventeen measures exhibit both characteristics, fourteen measures exhibited one characteristic, and one measure possessed neither characteristic (the F1 measure). All classification measures (such as classification accuracy and F1) are improper for clinically relevant decision thresholds other than 0.5 or the prevalence. We recommend the following measures and plots as essential to report: AUROC, calibration plot, a clinical utility measure such as net benefit with decision curve analysis, and a plot with probability distributions per outcome category.

Bas B. L. Penning de Vries, Maarten van Smeden, Rolf H. H. Groenwold

Data mining and machine learning techniques such as classification and regression trees (CART) represent a promising alternative to conventional logistic regression for propensity score estimation. Whereas incomplete data preclude the fitting of a logistic regression on all subjects, CART is appealing in part because some implementations allow for incomplete records to be incorporated in the tree fitting and provide propensity score estimates for all subjects. Based on theoretical considerations, we argue that the automatic handling of missing data by CART may however not be appropriate. Using a series of simulation experiments, we examined the performance of different approaches to handling missing covariate data; (i) applying the CART algorithm directly to the (partially) incomplete data, (ii) complete case analysis, and (iii) multiple imputation. Performance was assessed in terms of bias in estimating exposure-outcome effects \add{among the exposed}, standard error, mean squared error and coverage. Applying the CART algorithm directly to incomplete data resulted in bias, even in scenarios where data were missing completely at random. Overall, multiple imputation followed by CART resulted in the best performance. Our study showed that automatic handling of missing data in CART can cause serious bias and does not outperform multiple imputation as a means to account for missing data.