Advertisement

Using Distribution Divergence to Predict Changes in the Performance of Clinical Predictive Models

Conference paper
  • 282 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 12721)

Abstract

Clinical predictive models are vulnerable to degradation in performance due to changes in the distribution of the data (distribution divergence) at application time. Significant reductions in model performance can lead to suboptimal medical decisions and harm to patients. Distribution divergence in healthcare data can arise from changes in medical practice, patient demographics, equipment, and measurement standards. However, estimating model performance at application time is challenging when labels are not readily available, which is often the case in healthcare. One solution to this challenge is to develop unsupervised methods of measuring distribution divergence that are predictive of changes in performance of clinical models. In this article, we investigate the capability of divergence metrics that can be computed without labels in estimating model performance under conditions of distribution divergence. In particular, we examine two popular integral probability metrics, i.e., Wasserstein distance and maximum mean discrepancy, and measure their correlation with model performance in the context of predicting mortality and prolonged stay in the intensive care unit (ICU). When models were trained on data from one hospital’s ICU and assessed on data from ICUs in other hospitals, model performance was significantly correlated with the degree of divergence across hospitals as measured by the distribution divergence metrics. Moreover, regression models could predict model performance from divergence metrics with small errors.

Keywords

Clinical predictive models Electronic health records Distribution divergence metrics Concept drift Dataset shift 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research reported in this publication was supported by the National Library of Medicine of the National Institutes of Health under award number R01 LM012095, and a Provost Fellowship in Intelligent Systems at the University of Pittsburgh (awarded to M.T.). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

References

  1. 1.
    Alvarez-Melis, D., Fusi, N.: Geometric dataset distances via optimal transport. Adv. Neural. Inf. Process. Syst. 33, 21428–21439 (2020)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Balachandar, N., Chang, K., Kalpathy-Cramer, J., Rubin, D.L.: Accounting for data variability in multi-institutional distributed deep learning for medical imaging. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 27(5), 700–708 (2020)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ben-David, S., Blitzer, J., Crammer, K., et al.: A theory of learning from different domains. Mach. Learn. 79(1–2), 151–175 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Che, Z., Purushotham, S., Cho, K., Sontag, D., Liu, Y.: Recurrent neural networks for multivariate time series with missing values. Sci. Rep. 8(1), 1–12 (2018)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chuang, C.Y., Torralba, A., Jegelka, S.: Estimating generalization under distribution shifts via domain-invariant representations. In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 1984–1994. PMLR (2020)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Davis, S.E., Lasko, T.A., Chen, G., Matheny, M.E.: Calibration drift among regression and machine learning models for hospital mortality. In: AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings, pp. 625–634 (2017)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Davis, S.E., Lasko, T.A., Chen, G., Siew, E.D., Matheny, M.E.: Calibration drift in regression and machine learning models for acute kidney injury. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 24(6), 1052–1061 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Elsahar, H., Gallé, M.: To annotate or not? Predicting performance drop under domain shift. In: Proceedings of EMNLP-IJCNLP, pp. 2163–2173 (2019)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Flamary, R., Courty, N.: POT python optimal transport library (2017)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ghassemi, M., Naumann, T., Schulam, P., et al.: A review of challenges and opportunities in machine learning for health. AMIA Summits Transl. Sci. Proc. 2020, 191–200 (2020)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gretton, A., Borgwardt, K.M., Rasch, M.J., et al.: A kernel two-sample test. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 13(1), 723–773 (2012)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jaffe, A., Nadler, B., Kluger, Y.: Estimating the accuracies of multiple classifiers without labeled data. In: Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pp. 407–415 (2015)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kashyap, A.R., Hazarika, D., Kan, M.Y., Zimmermann, R.: Domain divergences: a survey and empirical analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.12198 (2020)
  14. 14.
    King, A.J., Cooper, G.F., Clermont, G., et al.: Using machine learning to selectively highlight patient information. J. Biomed. Informat. 100, 103327 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kullback, S.: Information theory and statistics. Courier Corporation (1997)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Miotto, R., Wang, F., Wang, S., et al.: Deep learning for healthcare: review, opportunities and challenges. Brief. Bioinform. 19(6), 1236–1246 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Moons, K.G., Kengne, A.P., Grobbee, D.E., et al.: Risk prediction models: II. External validation, model updating, and impact assessment. Heart 98(9), 691–698 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nestor, B., McDermott, M.B., Boag, W., et al.: Feature robustness in non-stationary health records: caveats to deployable model performance in common clinical machine learning tasks. In: Machine Learning for Healthcare Conference, pp. 381–405. PMLR (2019)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    S. Panda, S. Palaniappan, J. Xiong, et al. hyppo: A comprehensive multivariate hypothesis testing python package, 2020Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Paszke, A., Gross, S., Massa, F., et al.: Pytorch: an imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. Adv. Neural. Inf. Process. Syst. 32, 8026–8037 (2019)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., et al.: Scikit-learn: machine learning in Python. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 12, 2825–2830 (2011)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Platanios, E., Poon, H., Mitchell, T.M., Horvitz, E.J.: Estimating accuracy from unlabeled data: a probabilistic logic approach. Adv. Neural. Inf. Process. Syst. 30, 4361–4370 (2017)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rabanser, S., Günnemann, S., Lipton, Z.: Failing loudly: an empirical study of methods for detecting dataset shift. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 32, pp. 1396–1408 (2019)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sriperumbudur, B.K., Fukumizu, K., Gretton, A., et al.: On integral probability metrics, \(\varphi \)-divergences and binary classification. arXiv:0901.2698 (2009)
  25. 25.
    Steyerberg, E.W., et al.: Clinical Prediction Models. Springer, Cham (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16399-010.1007/978-3-030-16399-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Subbaswamy, A., Saria, S.: From development to deployment: Dataset shift, causality, and shift-stable models in health AI. Biostatistics 21(2), 345–352 (2020)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Villani, C.: Optimal Transport: Old and New, vol. 338. Springer, Heidelberg (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71050-9CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wang, S., McDermott, M.B., Chauhan, G., et al.: MIMIC-Extract: a data extraction, preprocessing, and representation pipeline for MIMIC-III. In: Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Health, Inference, and Learning, pp. 222–235 (2020)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zech, J.R., Badgeley, M.A., Liu, M., et al.: Variable generalization performance of a deep learning model to detect pneumonia in chest radiographs: a cross-sectional study. PLoS Med. 15(11):e1002683 (2018)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Žliobaitė, I., Pechenizkiy, M., Gama, J.: An overview of concept drift applications. In: Japkowicz, N., Stefanowski, J. (eds.) Big Data Analysis: New Algorithms for a New Society. SBD, vol. 16, pp. 91–114. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26989-4_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Intelligent Systems ProgramUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biomedical InformaticsUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations