Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36810915›Full record

ArticleNPJ digital medicine2023

The impact of inconsistent human annotations on AI driven clinical decision making.

Aneeta Sylolypavan, Derek Sleeman, Honghan Wu, Malcolm Sim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed
–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

47 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

4 authors.

Aneeta SylolypavanInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Derek SleemanSchool of Natural and Computing Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7609-4371
Honghan WuInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, United Kingdom. honghan.wu@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0213-5668
Malcolm SimSchool of Medicine, Nursing and Dentistry, University of Glasgow, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK.

Funding

British Council UCL-NMU-SEU International CollaborationDH | National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) NIHR202639Medical Research Council MC_PC_18029Medical Research Council MR/S004149/1Medical Research Council MR/S004149/2RCUK | Medical Research Council (MRC) National Text Analytics ProjectUniversity of Edinburgh The Advanced Care Research Centre Programme
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In supervised learning model development, domain experts are often used to provide the class labels (annotations). Annotation inconsistencies commonly occur when even highly experienced clinical experts annotate the same phenomenon (e.g., medical image, diagnostics, or prognostic status), due to inherent expert bias, judgments, and slips, among other factors. While their existence is relatively well-known, the implications of such inconsistencies are largely understudied in real-world settings, when supervised learning is applied on such 'noisy' labelled data. To shed light on these issues, we conducted extensive experiments and analyses on three real-world Intensive Care Unit (ICU) datasets. Specifically, individual models were built from a common dataset, annotated independently by 11 Glasgow Queen Elizabeth University Hospital ICU consultants, and model performance estimates were compared through internal validation (Fleiss' κ = 0.383 i.e., fair agreement). Further, broad external validation (on both static and time series datasets) of these 11 classifiers was carried out on a HiRID external dataset, where the models' classifications were found to have low pairwise agreements (average Cohen's κ = 0.255 i.e., minimal agreement). Moreover, they tend to disagree more on making discharge decisions (Fleiss' κ = 0.174) than predicting mortality (Fleiss' κ = 0.267). Given these inconsistencies, further analyses were conducted to evaluate the current best practices in obtaining gold-standard models and determining consensus. The results suggest that: (a) there may not always be a "super expert" in acute clinical settings (using internal and external validation model performances as a proxy); and (b) standard consensus seeking (such as majority vote) consistently leads to suboptimal models. Further analysis, however, suggests that assessing annotation learnability and using only 'learnable' annotated datasets for determining consensus achieves optimal models in most cases.

Identifiers

PMID36810915
PMCPMC9944930

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.