Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40482691›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2025

Monitoring strategies for continuous evaluation of deployed clinical prediction models.

Grace Y E Kim, Conor K Corbin, François Grolleau, Michael Baiocchi, Jonathan H Chen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

5 authors.

Grace Y E KimCenter for Biomedical Informatics Research, Stanford, CA, USA. Electronic address: yek1354@stanford.edu.
Conor K CorbinCenter for Biomedical Informatics Research, Stanford, CA, USA; Department of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford, CA, USA.
François GrolleauCenter for Biomedical Informatics Research, Stanford, CA, USA.
Michael BaiocchiDepartment of Epidemiology and Population Health, Stanford, CA, USA.
Jonathan H ChenCenter for Biomedical Informatics Research, Stanford, CA, USA; Division of Hospital Medicine, Stanford, Stanford, CA, USA; Clinical Excellence Research Center, Stanford, CA, USA.

Funding

Stanford Center for Clinical & Translational Education and Research (Spectrum)UL1TR003142 · NCATS · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI O'HARA, RUTH M · 2019 to 2023
$45.0M
Western States Node of the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (TMS for CUD) UG1DA015815 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI Keith N. Humphreys, Philip Todd Korthuis · 2015 to 2026
$24.6M
Center for Undiagnosed Diseases at StanfordU01NS134358 · NINDS · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI Jonathan Adam Bernstein, HOLLY K TABOR · 2023 to 2026
$3.1M
Measuring and Predicting Appropriate Antibiotic Use to Combat Resistant BacteriaR01AI178121 · NIAID · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI JONATHAN H. CHEN · 2023 to 2026
$3.1M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR003142NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI178121NIDA NIH HHS UG1 DA015815NINDS NIH HHS U01 NS134358
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveAs machine learning adoption in clinical practice continues to grow, deployed classifiers must be continuously monitored and updated (retrained) to protect against data drift that stems from inevitable changes, including evolving medical practices and shifting patient populations. However, successful clinical machine learning classifiers will lead to a change in care which may change the distribution of features, labels, and their relationship. For example, "high risk" cases that were correctly identified by the model may ultimately get labeled as "low risk" thanks to an intervention prompted by the model's alert. Classifier surveillance systems naive to such deployment-induced feedback loops will estimate lower model performance and lead to degraded future classifier retrains. The objective of this study is to simulate the impact of these feedback loops, propose feedback aware monitoring strategies as a solution, and assess the performance of these alternative monitoring strategies through simulations.

methodsWe propose Adherence Weighted and Sampling Weighted Monitoring as two feedback loop-aware surveillance strategies. Through simulation we evaluate their ability to accurately appraise post deployment model performance and to initiate safe and accurate classifier retraining.

resultsMeasured across accuracy, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, average precision, brier score, expected calibration error, F1, precision, sensitivity, and specificity, in the presence of feedback loops, Adherence Weighted and Sampling Weighted strategies have the highest fidelity to the ground truth classifier performance while standard approaches yield the most inaccurate estimations. Furthermore, in simulations with true data drift, retraining using standard unweighted approaches results in a AUROC score of 0.52 (drop from 0.72). In contrast, retraining based on Adherence Weighted and Sampling Weighted strategies recover performance to 0.67 which is comparable to what a new model trained from scratch on the existing and shifted data would obtain.

conclusionCompared to standard approaches, Adherence Weighted and Sampling Weighted strategies yield more accurate classifier performance estimates, measured according to the no-treatment potential outcome. Retraining based on these strategies bring stronger performance recovery when tested against data drift and feedback loops than do standard approaches.

Indexed as

Machine LearningAlgorithmsComputer SimulationHumansClinical informaticsClinical predictionFeedback loopsMachine learningModel retrainingPost deployment performance monitoring

Identifiers

PMID40482691
PMCPMC12278811

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.