» Articles » PMID: 31504588

Prognostic Models Will Be Victims of Their Own Success, Unless…

Overview
Date 2019 Sep 11
PMID 31504588
Citations 37
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Predictive analytics have begun to change the workflows of healthcare by giving insight into our future health. Deploying prognostic models into clinical workflows should change behavior and motivate interventions that affect outcomes. As users respond to model predictions, downstream characteristics of the data, including the distribution of the outcome, may change. The ever-changing nature of healthcare necessitates maintenance of prognostic models to ensure their longevity. The more effective a model and intervention(s) are at improving outcomes, the faster a model will appear to degrade. Improving outcomes can disrupt the association between the model's predictors and the outcome. Model refitting may not always be the most effective response to these challenges. These problems will need to be mitigated by systematically incorporating interventions into prognostic models and by maintaining robust performance surveillance of models in clinical use. Holistically modeling the outcome and intervention(s) can lead to resilience to future compromises in performance.

Citing Articles

The early warning paradox.

Logan Ellis H, Palmer E, Teo J, Whyte M, Rockwood K, Ibrahim Z NPJ Digit Med. 2025; 8(1):81.

PMID: 39900787 PMC: 11790821. DOI: 10.1038/s41746-024-01408-x.


Proximity to Practice: The Role of Technology in the Next Era of Assessment.

Krumm A, Lai H, Marcotte K, Ark T, Yaneva V, Chahine S Perspect Med Educ. 2024; 13(1):646-653.

PMID: 39735827 PMC: 11673589. DOI: 10.5334/pme.1272.


Improving survival models in healthcare: a novel matching approach.

Bertsimas D, Ning C, Lonning P, Baba H, Endo I, Burkhart R Res Sq. 2024; .

PMID: 39711552 PMC: 11661418. DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-5467577/v1.


Monitoring performance of clinical artificial intelligence in health care: a scoping review.

Andersen E, Birk-Korch J, Hansen R, Fly L, Rottger R, Arcani D JBI Evid Synth. 2024; 22(12):2423-2446.

PMID: 39658865 PMC: 11630661. DOI: 10.11124/JBIES-24-00042.


Development and assessment of a machine learning tool for predicting emergency admission in Scotland.

Liley J, Bohner G, Emerson S, Mateen B, Borland K, Carr D NPJ Digit Med. 2024; 7(1):277.

PMID: 39443624 PMC: 11499905. DOI: 10.1038/s41746-024-01250-1.


References
1.
Fleming N, Becker E, Culler S, Cheng D, McCorkle R, da Graca B . The impact of electronic health records on workflow and financial measures in primary care practices. Health Serv Res. 2013; 49(1 Pt 2):405-20. PMC: 3925410. DOI: 10.1111/1475-6773.12133. View

2.
Lorenzi N, Riley R . Managing change: an overview. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2000; 7(2):116-24. PMC: 61464. DOI: 10.1136/jamia.2000.0070116. View

3.
Moons K, Altman D, Vergouwe Y, Royston P . Prognosis and prognostic research: application and impact of prognostic models in clinical practice. BMJ. 2009; 338:b606. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.b606. View

4.
Pencina M, DAgostino Sr R . Evaluating Discrimination of Risk Prediction Models: The C Statistic. JAMA. 2015; 314(10):1063-4. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2015.11082. View

5.
Dressel J, Farid H . The accuracy, fairness, and limits of predicting recidivism. Sci Adv. 2018; 4(1):eaao5580. PMC: 5777393. DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aao5580. View