Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38875530›Full record

ArticleJMIR AI2023

Practical Considerations and Applied Examples of Cross-Validation for Model Development and Evaluation in Health Care: Tutorial.

Drew Wilimitis, Colin G Walsh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR AI, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 78 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
78citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

78 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

18 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors.

Drew WilimitisVanderbilt University Medical Center, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0585-3240
Colin G WalshVanderbilt University Medical Center, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9379-2056

Funding

Ethics Core (FABRIC)U54HG012510 · NHGRI · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI MALIN, BRADLEY A. · 2022 to 2025
$11.2M
Genetic Privacy and Identity in Community Settings - GetPreCiSeRM1HG009034 · NHGRI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI CLAYTON, ELLEN WRIGHT, MALIN, BRADLEY A. · 2016 to 2024
$8.3M
PsycheMERGE: Leveraging electronic health records and genomics for mental health researchR01MH118233 · NIMH · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI DAVIS, LEA K, SMOLLER, JORDAN W · 2019 to 2022
$3.1M
Distinguishing Clinical and Genetic Risk of Suicidal Ideation from Attempts to Inform PreventionR01MH121455 · NIMH · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI RUDERFER, DOUGLAS, WALSH, COLIN GEORGE · 2020 to 2024
$2.7M
Integrating signals of suicide risk from DoD and VHA data to improve upon suicide risk prevention strategies for combat VeteransR01MH120122 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI ADAMS, RACHEL SAYKO, BRENNER, LISA A · 2019 to 2022
$1.9M
2/2 Leveraging electronic health records for pharmacogenomics of psychiatric diordersR01MH116269 · NIMH · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI RUDERFER, DOUGLAS, WALSH, COLIN GEORGE · 2019 to 2022
$1.7M
NHGRI NIH HHS RM1 HG009034NHGRI NIH HHS U54 HG012510NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH116269NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH118233NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH120122NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH121455Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cross-validation remains a popular means of developing and validating artificial intelligence for health care. Numerous subtypes of cross-validation exist. Although tutorials on this validation strategy have been published and some with applied examples, we present here a practical tutorial comparing multiple forms of cross-validation using a widely accessible, real-world electronic health care data set: Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care-III (MIMIC-III). This tutorial explored methods such as K-fold cross-validation and nested cross-validation, highlighting their advantages and disadvantages across 2 common predictive modeling use cases: classification (mortality) and regression (length of stay). We aimed to provide readers with reproducible notebooks and best practices for modeling with electronic health care data. We also described sets of useful recommendations as we demonstrated that nested cross-validation reduces optimistic bias but comes with additional computational challenges. This tutorial might improve the community's understanding of these important methods while catalyzing the modeling community to apply these guides directly in their work using the published code.

Indexed as

AIartificial intelligenceclinical decision-makingcross-validationdata validationeHealth dataelectronic health carehealth care datamodel developmentpredictive modelingrisk detectiontutorial

Identifiers

PMID38875530
PMCPMC11041453

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.