Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38620047›Full record

ArticlePLOS digital health2024

Machine learning for healthcare that matters: Reorienting from technical novelty to equitable impact.

Aparna Balagopalan, Ioana Baldini, Leo Anthony Celi, Judy Gichoya, Liam G McCoy, Tristan Naumann, Uri Shalit, Mihaela van der Schaar, Kiri L Wagstaff

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS digital health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

9 authors at 9 institutions in 4 countries.

Aparna BalagopalanDepartment of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1621-9536
Ioana BaldiniIBM Research; Yorktown Heights, New York, United States of America.
Leo Anthony CeliLaboratory for Computational Physiology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Judy GichoyaDepartment of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, School of Medicine, Emory University; Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Liam G McCoyDivision of Neurology, Department of Medicine, University of Alberta; Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4468-2256
Tristan NaumannMicrosoft Research; Redmond, Washington, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2150-1747
Uri ShalitThe Faculty of Data and Decision Sciences, Technion; Haifa, Israel.
Mihaela van der SchaarDepartment of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge; Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Kiri L WagstaffIndependent Researcher; United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4401-5506
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center · USEmory University · USIBM (United States) · USMassachusetts Institute of Technology · USMicrosoft (United States) · USOldham Council · GBTechnion – Israel Institute of Technology · ILUniversity of Alberta · CAUniversity of Cambridge · GB

Funding

RADX TECH - CERES NANOSCIENCE INC NANOTRAP PARTICLE MANUFACTURING75N92020C00021 · NHLBI · CERES NANOSCIENCES, LLLP · PI DUNLAP, ROSS · 2021 to 2021
$4.0M
Critical Care Informatics: Ethical considerations around the use and sharing of health-related dataR01EB017205 · NIBIB · MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI CELI, LEO ANTHONY G, MARK, ROGER GREENWOOD · 2014 to 2021
$3.8M
NHLBI NIH HHS 75N92020C00008NHLBI NIH HHS 75N92020C00021NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB017205
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite significant technical advances in machine learning (ML) over the past several years, the tangible impact of this technology in healthcare has been limited. This is due not only to the particular complexities of healthcare, but also due to structural issues in the machine learning for healthcare (MLHC) community which broadly reward technical novelty over tangible, equitable impact. We structure our work as a healthcare-focused echo of the 2012 paper "Machine Learning that Matters", which highlighted such structural issues in the ML community at large, and offered a series of clearly defined "Impact Challenges" to which the field should orient itself. Drawing on the expertise of a diverse and international group of authors, we engage in a narrative review and examine issues in the research background environment, training processes, evaluation metrics, and deployment protocols which act to limit the real-world applicability of MLHC. Broadly, we seek to distinguish between machine learning ON healthcare data and machine learning FOR healthcare-the former of which sees healthcare as merely a source of interesting technical challenges, and the latter of which regards ML as a tool in service of meeting tangible clinical needs. We offer specific recommendations for a series of stakeholders in the field, from ML researchers and clinicians, to the institutions in which they work, and the governments which regulate their data access.

Identifiers

PMID38620047
PMCPMC11018283
OpenAlexW4394822141

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.