Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37561695›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

MedTric : A clinically applicable metric for evaluation of multi-label computational diagnostic systems.

Soumadeep Saha, Utpal Garain, Arijit Ukil, Arpan Pal, Sundeep Khandelwal

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Soumadeep SahaComputer Vision and Pattern Recognition Unit, Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata, West Bengal, India.ORCID 0000-0003-0013-5143
Utpal GarainComputer Vision and Pattern Recognition Unit, Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata, West Bengal, India.
Arijit UkilTCS Research, Tata Consultancy Services, Kolkata, West Bengal, India.
Arpan PalTCS Research, Tata Consultancy Services, Kolkata, West Bengal, India.
Sundeep KhandelwalTCS Research, Tata Consultancy Services, Kolkata, West Bengal, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AlgorithmsMachine LearningBenchmarking

Identifiers

PMID37561695
PMCPMC10414580

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.