ArticleCommunications medicine2023
Ensuring fair, safe, and interpretable artificial intelligence-based prediction tools in a real-world oncological setting.
Article in Communications medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Explainable federated transformer framework for joint leukemia classification and stage prediction.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- The impact of updated imaging software on the performance of machine learning models for breast cancer diagnosis: a multi-center, retrospective study.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2025Article
- A scoping review and evidence gap analysis of clinical AI fairness.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCancer patients often experience treatment-related symptoms which, if uncontrolled, may require emergency department admission. We developed models identifying breast or genitourinary cancer patients at the risk of attending emergency department (ED) within 30-days and demonstrated the development, validation, and proactive approach to in-production monitoring of an artificial intelligence-based predictive model during a 3-month simulated deployment at a cancer hospital in the United States.
methodsWe used routinely-collected electronic health record data to develop our predictive models. We evaluated models including a variational autoencoder k-nearest neighbors algorithm (VAE-kNN) and model behaviors with a sample containing 84,138 observations from 28,369 patients. We assessed the model during a 77-day production period exposure to live data using a proactively monitoring process with predefined metrics.
resultsPerformance of the VAE-kNN algorithm is exceptional (Area under the receiver-operating characteristics, AUC = 0.80) and remains stable across demographic and disease groups over the production period (AUC 0.74-0.82). We can detect issues in data feeds using our monitoring process to create immediate insights into future model performance.
conclusionsOur algorithm demonstrates exceptional performance at predicting risk of 30-day ED visits. We confirm that model outputs are equitable and stable over time using a proactive monitoring approach.
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.