Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37995113›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2023

A Conference (Missingness in Action) to Address Missingness in Data and AI in Health Care: Qualitative Thematic Analysis.

Christian Rose, Rachel Barber, Carl Preiksaitis, Ireh Kim, Nikesh Mishra, Kristen Kayser, Italo Brown, Michael Gisondi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. AI passed the test, but can it make the rounds?AEM education and training · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

8 authors.

Christian RoseDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-5115-649X
Rachel BarberStanford University, Palo Alto, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-4290-7041
Carl PreiksaitisDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-3856-0068
Ireh KimStanford University, Palo Alto, CA, United States.ORCID 0009-0008-2273-2727
Nikesh MishraStanford University, Palo Alto, CA, United States.ORCID 0009-0007-6533-7869
Kristen KayserDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, United States.ORCID 0009-0009-0968-4596
Italo BrownDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, United States.ORCID 0009-0007-5197-1981
Michael GisondiDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-6800-3932

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMissingness in health care data poses significant challenges in the development and implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning solutions. Identifying and addressing these challenges is critical to ensuring the continued growth and accuracy of these models as well as their equitable and effective use in health care settings.

objectiveThis study aims to explore the challenges, opportunities, and potential solutions related to missingness in health care data for AI applications through the conduct of a digital conference and thematic analysis of conference proceedings.

methodsA digital conference was held in September 2022, attracting 861 registered participants, with 164 (19%) attending the live event. The conference featured presentations and panel discussions by experts in AI, machine learning, and health care. Transcripts of the event were analyzed using the stepwise framework of Braun and Clark to identify key themes related to missingness in health care data.

resultsThree principal themes-data quality and bias, human input in model development, and trust and privacy-emerged from the analysis. Topics included the accuracy of predictive models, lack of inclusion of underrepresented communities, partnership with physicians and other populations, challenges with sensitive health care data, and fostering trust with patients and the health care community.

conclusionsAddressing the challenges of data quality, human input, and trust is vital when devising and using machine learning algorithms in health care. Recommendations include expanding data collection efforts to reduce gaps and biases, involving medical professionals in the development and implementation of AI models, and developing clear ethical guidelines to safeguard patient privacy. Further research and ongoing discussions are needed to ensure these conclusions remain relevant as health care and AI continue to evolve.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceMachine LearningAlgorithmsData AccuracyData CollectionHumansAIartificial intelligencedata qualitydigital conferencehealth care communityhealth care dataimplementationmachine learningpredictive modelprivacythematic analysistrust

Identifiers

PMID37995113
PMCPMC10704317

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.