ArticlePloS one2023
MedTric : A clinically applicable metric for evaluation of multi-label computational diagnostic systems.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When judging the quality of a computational system for a pathological screening task, several factors seem to be important, like sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, etc. With machine learning based approaches showing promise in the multi-label paradigm, they are being widely adopted to diagnostics and digital therapeutics. Metrics are usually borrowed from machine learning literature, and the current consensus is to report results on a diverse set of metrics. It is infeasible to compare efficacy of computational systems which have been evaluated on different sets of metrics. From a diagnostic utility standpoint, the current metrics themselves are far from perfect, often biased by prevalence of negative samples or other statistical factors and importantly, they are designed to evaluate general purpose machine learning tasks. In this paper we outline the various parameters that are important in constructing a clinical metric aligned with diagnostic practice, and demonstrate their incompatibility with existing metrics. We propose a new metric, MedTric that takes into account several factors that are of clinical importance. MedTric is built from the ground up keeping in mind the unique context of computational diagnostics and the principle of risk minimization, penalizing missed diagnosis more harshly than over-diagnosis. MedTric is a unified metric for medical or pathological screening system evaluation. We compare this metric against other widely used metrics and demonstrate how our system outperforms them in key areas of medical relevance.
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.