Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38308256›Full record

ReviewBMC medical informatics and decision making2024

Susceptibility of AutoML mortality prediction algorithms to model drift caused by the COVID pandemic.

Simone Maria Kagerbauer, Bernhard Ulm, Armin Horst Podtschaske, Dimislav Ivanov Andonov, Manfred Blobner, Bettina Jungwirth, Martin Graessner

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Simone Maria Kagerbauer *Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany. simone.kagerbauer@uni-ulm.de.
Bernhard Ulm *Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Armin Horst PodtschaskeDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Dimislav Ivanov AndonovDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Manfred BlobnerDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Bettina JungwirthDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Ulm, Albert-Einstein-Allee 23, Ulm, 89081, Germany.
Martin GraessnerDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.

Funding

German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy ZF4544901TS8
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConcept drift and covariate shift lead to a degradation of machine learning (ML) models. The objective of our study was to characterize sudden data drift as caused by the COVID pandemic. Furthermore, we investigated the suitability of certain methods in model training to prevent model degradation caused by data drift.

methodsWe trained different ML models with the H2O AutoML method on a dataset comprising 102,666 cases of surgical patients collected in the years 2014-2019 to predict postoperative mortality using preoperatively available data. Models applied were Generalized Linear Model with regularization, Default Random Forest, Gradient Boosting Machine, eXtreme Gradient Boosting, Deep Learning and Stacked Ensembles comprising all base models. Further, we modified the original models by applying three different methods when training on the original pre-pandemic dataset: (Rahmani K, et al, Int J Med Inform 173:104930, 2023) we weighted older data weaker, (Morger A, et al, Sci Rep 12:7244, 2022) used only the most recent data for model training and (Dilmegani C, 2023) performed a z-transformation of the numerical input parameters. Afterwards, we tested model performance on a pre-pandemic and an in-pandemic data set not used in the training process, and analysed common features.

resultsThe models produced showed excellent areas under receiver-operating characteristic and acceptable precision-recall curves when tested on a dataset from January-March 2020, but significant degradation when tested on a dataset collected in the first wave of the COVID pandemic from April-May 2020. When comparing the probability distributions of the input parameters, significant differences between pre-pandemic and in-pandemic data were found. The endpoint of our models, in-hospital mortality after surgery, did not differ significantly between pre- and in-pandemic data and was about 1% in each case. However, the models varied considerably in the composition of their input parameters. None of our applied modifications prevented a loss of performance, although very different models emerged from it, using a large variety of parameters.

conclusionsOur results show that none of our tested easy-to-implement measures in model training can prevent deterioration in the case of sudden external events. Therefore, we conclude that, in the presence of concept drift and covariate shift, close monitoring and critical review of model predictions are necessary.

Indexed as

COVID-19PandemicsAlgorithmsHospital MortalityHumansMachine LearningAutoMLConcept driftCovariate shiftCOVID-19Data shiftModel deterioration

Identifiers

PMID38308256
PMCPMC10837894

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.