Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38941140›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2024

Considerations for Quality Control Monitoring of Machine Learning Models in Clinical Practice.

Louis Faust, Patrick Wilson, Shusaku Asai, Sunyang Fu, Hongfang Liu, Xiaoyang Ruan, Curt Storlie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. 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

7 authors.

Louis FaustRobert D and Patricia E Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9741-7894
Patrick WilsonRobert D and Patricia E Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6604-444X
Shusaku AsaiRobert D and Patricia E Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-9230-3103
Sunyang FuDepartment of Artificial Intelligence and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1691-5179
Hongfang LiuDepartment of Artificial Intelligence and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2570-3741
Xiaoyang RuanDepartment of Artificial Intelligence and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-7085-744X
Curt StorlieRobert D and Patricia E Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2464-6864

Funding

Secondary use of EMRs for surgical complication surveillanceR01EB019403 · NIBIB · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI LIU, HONGFANG, STORLIE, CURTIS · 2015 to 2022
$3.8M
NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB019403
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Integrating machine learning (ML) models into clinical practice presents a challenge of maintaining their efficacy over time. While existing literature offers valuable strategies for detecting declining model performance, there is a need to document the broader challenges and solutions associated with the real-world development and integration of model monitoring solutions. This work details the development and use of a platform for monitoring the performance of a production-level ML model operating in Mayo Clinic. In this paper, we aimed to provide a series of considerations and guidelines necessary for integrating such a platform into a team's technical infrastructure and workflow. We have documented our experiences with this integration process, discussed the broader challenges encountered with real-world implementation and maintenance, and included the source code for the platform. Our monitoring platform was built as an R shiny application, developed and implemented over the course of 6 months. The platform has been used and maintained for 2 years and is still in use as of July 2023. The considerations necessary for the implementation of the monitoring platform center around 4 pillars: feasibility (what resources can be used for platform development?); design (through what statistics or models will the model be monitored, and how will these results be efficiently displayed to the end user?); implementation (how will this platform be built, and where will it exist within the IT ecosystem?); and policy (based on monitoring feedback, when and what actions will be taken to fix problems, and how will these problems be translated to clinical staff?). While much of the literature surrounding ML performance monitoring emphasizes methodological approaches for capturing changes in performance, there remains a battery of other challenges and considerations that must be addressed for successful real-world implementation.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceimplementation sciencemachine learningmonitoringpatient safetyquality control

Identifiers

PMID38941140
PMCPMC11245651

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.