ArticleJournal of the American College of Radiology : JACR2022
Machine Learning Model Drift: Predicting Diagnostic Imaging Follow-Up as a Case Example.
Article in Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Keeping Medical AI Healthy and Trustworthy: A Review of Detection and Correction Methods for System Degradation.IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering · 2026Review
- Ethical oversight of AI-driven paediatric trials: a proactive, risk-sensitive interim review model.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Emerging algorithmic bias: fairness drift as the next dimension of model maintenance and sustainability.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025Article
- One-class support vector machines for detecting population drift in deployed machine learning medical diagnostics.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Adaptable graph neural networks design to support generalizability for clinical event prediction.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2025Article
- A review of deep learning for brain tumor analysis in MRI.NPJ precision oncology · 2025Review
- A machine-learning prediction model to identify risk of firearm injury using electronic health records data.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024Article
- Radiology AI Deployment and Assessment Rubric (RADAR) to bring value-based AI into radiological practice.Insights into imaging · 2024Article
- Enhancing radiomics and Deep Learning systems through the standardization of medical imaging workflows.Scientific data · 2023Article
- Development and External Validation of an Artificial Intelligence Model for Identifying Radiology Reports Containing Recommendations for Additional Imaging.AJR. American journal of roentgenology · 2023Article
- Impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the performance of machine learning algorithms for predicting perioperative mortality.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveAddress model drift in a machine learning (ML) model for predicting diagnostic imaging follow-up using data augmentation with more recent data versus retraining new predictive models.
methodsThis institutional review board-approved retrospective study was conducted January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2020, at a large academic institution. A previously trained ML model was trained on 1,000 radiology reports from 2016 (old data). An additional 1,385 randomly selected reports from 2019 to 2020 (new data) were annotated for follow-up recommendations and randomly divided into two sets: training (n = 900) and testing (n = 485). Support vector machine and random forest (RF) algorithms were constructed and trained using 900 new data reports plus old data (augmented data, new models) and using only new data (new data, new models). The 2016 baseline model was used as comparator as is and trained with augmented data. Recall was compared with baseline using McNemar's test.
resultsFollow-up recommendations were contained in 11.3% of reports (157 or 1,385). The baseline model retrained with new data had precision = 0.83 and recall = 0.54; none significantly different from baseline. A new RF model trained with augmented data had significantly better recall versus the baseline model (0.80 versus 0.66, P = .04) and comparable precision (0.90 versus 0.86). DISCUSSION: ML methods for monitoring follow-up recommendations in radiology reports suffer model drift over time. A newly developed RF model achieved better recall with comparable precision versus simply retraining a previously trained original model with augmented data. Thus, regularly assessing and updating these models is necessary using more recent historical data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.