Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35395867›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

On evaluation metrics for medical applications of artificial intelligence.

Steven A Hicks, Inga Strümke, Vajira Thambawita, Malek Hammou, Michael A Riegler, Pål Halvorsen, Sravanthi Parasa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 365 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
365citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

365 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Artificial intelligence for segmentation and classification in lumbar spinal stenosis: an overview of current methods.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2025
    Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

305 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Steven A HicksSimulaMet, Oslo, Norway. steven@simula.no.
Inga StrümkeSimulaMet, Oslo, Norway.
Vajira ThambawitaSimulaMet, Oslo, Norway.
Malek HammouSimulaMet, Oslo, Norway.
Michael A RieglerSimulaMet, Oslo, Norway.
Pål HalvorsenSimulaMet, Oslo, Norway.
Sravanthi ParasaSwedish Medical Center, Seattle, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinicians and software developers need to understand how proposed machine learning (ML) models could improve patient care. No single metric captures all the desirable properties of a model, which is why several metrics are typically reported to summarize a model's performance. Unfortunately, these measures are not easily understandable by many clinicians. Moreover, comparison of models across studies in an objective manner is challenging, and no tool exists to compare models using the same performance metrics. This paper looks at previous ML studies done in gastroenterology, provides an explanation of what different metrics mean in the context of binary classification in the presented studies, and gives a thorough explanation of how different metrics should be interpreted. We also release an open source web-based tool that may be used to aid in calculating the most relevant metrics presented in this paper so that other researchers and clinicians may easily incorporate them into their research.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceBenchmarkingHumansMachine LearningSoftware

Identifiers

PMID35395867
PMCPMC8993826

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.