Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35981636›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American College of Radiology : JACR2022

Machine Learning Model Drift: Predicting Diagnostic Imaging Follow-Up as a Case Example.

Ronilda Lacson, Mahsa Eskian, Andro Licaros, Neena Kapoor, Ramin Khorasani

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Emerging algorithmic bias: fairness drift as the next dimension of model maintenance and sustainability.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ronilda LacsonAssociate Director of Center for Evidence Based Imaging, Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; and Associate Professor, Department of Radiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: rlacson@rics.bwh.harvard.edu.
Mahsa EskianDepartment of Radiology, Center for Evidence-Based Imaging, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Andro LicarosDepartment of Radiology, Center for Evidence-Based Imaging, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Neena KapoorDirector of Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity and Quality and Safety Officer, Department of Radiology, Center for Evidence-Based Imaging, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; and Assistant Professor, Department of Radiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Ramin KhorasaniVice Chair of Radiology; Distinguished Chair, Medical Informatics; and Director of Center for Evidence Based Imaging, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; and Professor, Department of Radiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Brigham and Women's Hospital · USAmerican Medical Informatics Association · US

Funding

Factors that Enhance Diagnostic Imaging Safety in the Ambulatory SettingR01HS024722 · AHRQ · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI LACSON, RONILDA · 2016 to 2020
$1.7M
AHRQ HHS R01 HS024722
6 · The paper itself

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

AlgorithmsMachine LearningFollow-Up StudiesRadiographyRetrospective StudiesDiagnostic imagingmachine learningmodel drift

Identifiers

PMID35981636
PMCPMC12790260
OpenAlexW4291823754

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.