Machine Learning-based Clinical Decision Support Research Articles

What is morally at stake when using algorithms to make medical diagnoses? Expanding the discussion beyond risks and harms

In this paper, we examine the qualitative moral impact of machine learning-based clinical decision support systems in the process of medical diagnosis. To date, discussions about machine learning in this context have focused on problems that can be measured and assessed quantitatively, such as by estimating the extent of potential harm or calculating incurred risks. We maintain that such discussions neglect the qualitative moral impact of these technologies. Drawing on the philosophical approaches of technomoral change and technological mediation theory, which explore the interplay between technologies and morality, we present an analysis of concerns related to the adoption of machine learning-aided medical diagnosis. We analyze anticipated moral issues that machine learning systems pose for different stakeholders, such as bias and opacity in the way that models are trained to produce diagnoses, changes to how health care providers, patients, and developers understand their roles and professions, and challenges to existing forms of medical legislation. Albeit preliminary in nature, the insights offered by the technomoral change and the technological mediation approaches expand and enrich the current discussion about machine learning in diagnostic practices, bringing distinct and currently underexplored areas of concern to the forefront. These insights can contribute to a more encompassing and better informed decision-making process when adapting machine learning techniques to medical diagnosis, while acknowledging the interests of multiple stakeholders and the active role that technologies play in generating, perpetuating, and modifying ethical concerns in health care.

Enhancing the value to users of machine learning-based clinical decision support tools: A framework for iterative, collaborative development and implementation.

Health care organizations are integrating a variety of machine learning (ML)-based clinical decision support (CDS) tools into their operations, but practitioners lack clear guidance regarding how to implement these tools so that they assist end users in their work. We designed this study to identify how health care organizations can facilitate collaborative development of ML-based CDS tools to enhance their value for health care delivery in real-world settings. We utilized qualitative methods, including 37 interviews in a large, multispecialty health system that developed and implemented two operational ML-based CDS tools in two of its hospital sites. We performed thematic analyses to inform presentation of an explanatory framework and recommendations. We found that ML-based CDS tool development and implementation into clinical workflows proceeded in four phases: iterative solution coidentification, iterative coengagement, iterative coapplication, and iterative corefinement. Each phase is characterized by a collaborative back-and-forth process between the technology's developers and users, through which both users' activities and the technology itself are transformed. Health care organizations that anticipate iterative collaboration to be an integral aspect of their ML-based CDS tools' development and implementation process may have more success in deploying ML-based CDS tools that assist end users in their work than organizations that expect a traditional technology innovation process. Managers developing and implementing ML-based CDS tools should frame the work as a collaborative learning opportunity for both users and the technology itself and should solicit constructive feedback from users on potential changes to the technology, in addition to potential changes to user workflows, in an ongoing, iterative manner.

The ethics of machine learning-based clinical decision support: an analysis through the lens of professionalisation theory

BackgroundMachine learning-based clinical decision support systems (ML_CDSS) are increasingly employed in various sectors of health care aiming at supporting clinicians’ practice by matching the characteristics of individual patients with a computerised clinical knowledge base. Some studies even indicate that ML_CDSS may surpass physicians’ competencies regarding specific isolated tasks. From an ethical perspective, however, the usage of ML_CDSS in medical practice touches on a range of fundamental normative issues. This article aims to add to the ethical discussion by using professionalisation theory as an analytical lens for investigating how medical action at the micro level and the physician–patient relationship might be affected by the employment of ML_CDSS.Main textProfessionalisation theory, as a distinct sociological framework, provides an elaborated account of what constitutes client-related professional action, such as medical action, at its core and why it is more than pure expertise-based action. Professionalisation theory is introduced by presenting five general structural features of professionalised medical practice: (i) the patient has a concern; (ii) the physician deals with the patient’s concern; (iii) s/he gives assistance without patronising; (iv) s/he regards the patient in a holistic manner without building up a private relationship; and (v) s/he applies her/his general expertise to the particularities of the individual case. Each of these five key aspects are then analysed regarding the usage of ML_CDSS, thereby integrating the perspectives of professionalisation theory and medical ethics.ConclusionsUsing ML_CDSS in medical practice requires the physician to pay special attention to those facts of the individual case that cannot be comprehensively considered by ML_CDSS, for example, the patient’s personality, life situation or cultural background. Moreover, the more routinized the use of ML_CDSS becomes in clinical practice, the more that physicians need to focus on the patient’s concern and strengthen patient autonomy, for instance, by adequately integrating digital decision support in shared decision-making.

Evaluation of eye tracking for a decision support application.

Eye tracking is used widely to investigate attention and cognitive processes while performing tasks in electronic medical record (EMR) systems. We explored a novel application of eye tracking to collect training data for a machine learning-based clinical decision support tool that predicts which patient data are likely to be relevant for a clinical task. Specifically, we investigated in a laboratory setting the accuracy of eye tracking compared to manual annotation for inferring which patient data in the EMR are judged to be relevant by physicians. We evaluated several methods for processing gaze points that were recorded using a low-cost eye-tracking device. Our results show that eye tracking achieves accuracy and precision of 69% and 53%, respectively compared to manual annotation and are promising for machine learning. The methods for processing gaze points and scripts that we developed offer a first step in developing novel uses for eye tracking for clinical decision support.

Current Challenges and Future Opportunities for XAI in Machine Learning-Based Clinical Decision Support Systems: A Systematic Review

Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence (AI) more broadly have great immediate and future potential for transforming almost all aspects of medicine. However, in many applications, even outside medicine, a lack of transparency in AI applications has become increasingly problematic. This is particularly pronounced where users need to interpret the output of AI systems. Explainable AI (XAI) provides a rationale that allows users to understand why a system has produced a given output. The output can then be interpreted within a given context. One area that is in great need of XAI is that of Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSSs). These systems support medical practitioners in their clinic decision-making and in the absence of explainability may lead to issues of under or over-reliance. Providing explanations for how recommendations are arrived at will allow practitioners to make more nuanced, and in some cases, life-saving decisions. The need for XAI in CDSS, and the medical field in general, is amplified by the need for ethical and fair decision-making and the fact that AI trained with historical data can be a reinforcement agent of historical actions and biases that should be uncovered. We performed a systematic literature review of work to-date in the application of XAI in CDSS. Tabular data processing XAI-enabled systems are the most common, while XAI-enabled CDSS for text analysis are the least common in literature. There is more interest in developers for the provision of local explanations, while there was almost a balance between post-hoc and ante-hoc explanations, as well as between model-specific and model-agnostic techniques. Studies reported benefits of the use of XAI such as the fact that it could enhance decision confidence for clinicians, or generate the hypothesis about causality, which ultimately leads to increased trustworthiness and acceptability of the system and potential for its incorporation in the clinical workflow. However, we found an overall distinct lack of application of XAI in the context of CDSS and, in particular, a lack of user studies exploring the needs of clinicians. We propose some guidelines for the implementation of XAI in CDSS and explore some opportunities, challenges, and future research needs.

A machine learning-based clinical decision support system to identify prescriptions with a high risk of medication error.

ObjectiveTo improve patient safety and clinical outcomes by reducing the risk of prescribing errors, we tested the accuracy of a hybrid clinical decision support system in prioritizing prescription checks.Materials and MethodsData from electronic health records were collated over a period of 18 months. Inferred scores at a patient level (probability of a patient’s set of active orders to require a pharmacist review) were calculated using a hybrid approach (machine learning and a rule-based expert system). A clinical pharmacist analyzed randomly selected prescription orders over a 2-week period to corroborate our findings. Predicted scores were compared with the pharmacist’s review using the area under the receiving-operating characteristic curve and area under the precision-recall curve. These metrics were compared with existing tools: computerized alerts generated by a clinical decision support (CDS) system and a literature-based multicriteria query prioritization technique. Data from 10 716 individual patients (133 179 prescription orders) were used to train the algorithm on the basis of 25 features in a development dataset.ResultsWhile the pharmacist analyzed 412 individual patients (3364 prescription orders) in an independent validation dataset, the areas under the receiving-operating characteristic and precision-recall curves of our digital system were 0.81 and 0.75, respectively, thus demonstrating greater accuracy than the CDS system (0.65 and 0.56, respectively) and multicriteria query techniques (0.68 and 0.56, respectively).DiscussionOur innovative digital tool was notably more accurate than existing techniques (CDS system and multicriteria query) at intercepting potential prescription errors.ConclusionsBy primarily targeting high-risk patients, this novel hybrid decision support system improved the accuracy and reliability of prescription checks in a hospital setting.

Development of machine learning-based clinical decision support system for hepatocellular carcinoma

There is a significant discrepancy between the actual choice for initial treatment option for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and recommendations from the currently used BCLC staging system. We develop a machine learning-based clinical decision support system (CDSS) for recommending initial treatment option in HCC and predicting overall survival (OS). From hospital records of 1,021 consecutive patients with HCC treated at a single centre in Korea between January 2010 and October 2010, we collected information on 61 pretreatment variables, initial treatment, and survival status. Twenty pretreatment key variables were finally selected. We developed the CDSS from the derivation set (N = 813) using random forest method and validated it in the validation set (N = 208). Among the 1,021 patients (mean age: 56.9 years), 81.8% were male and 77.0% had positive hepatitis B BCLC stages 0, A, B, C, and D were observed in 13.4%, 26.0%, 18.0%, 36.6%, and 6.3% of patients, respectively. The six multi-step classifier model was developed for treatment decision in a hierarchical manner, and showed good performance with 81.0% of accuracy for radiofrequency ablation (RFA) or resection versus not, 88.4% for RFA versus resection, and 76.8% for TACE or not. We also developed seven survival prediction models for each treatment option. Our newly developed HCC-CDSS model showed good performance in terms of treatment recommendation and OS prediction and may be used as a guidance in deciding the initial treatment option for HCC.

Predicting Dental Dosimetry with Diagnostic Imaging Using a Machine Learning-Based Clinical Decision Support System

Predicting Dental Dosimetry with Diagnostic Imaging Using a Machine Learning-Based Clinical Decision Support System

Evaluation of ML-Based Clinical Decision Support Tool to Replace an Existing Tool in an Academic Health System: Lessons Learned.

There is increasing application of machine learning tools to problems in healthcare, with an ultimate goal to improve patient safety and health outcomes. When applied appropriately, machine learning tools can augment clinical care provided to patients. However, even if a model has impressive performance characteristics, prospectively evaluating and effectively implementing models into clinical care remains difficult. The primary objective of this paper is to recount our experiences and challenges in comparing a novel machine learning-based clinical decision support tool to legacy, non-machine learning tools addressing potential safety events in the hospitals and to summarize the obstacles which prevented evaluation of clinical efficacy of tools prior to widespread institutional use. We collected and compared safety events data, specifically patient falls and pressure injuries, between the standard of care approach and machine learning (ML)-based clinical decision support (CDS). Our assessment was limited to performance of the model rather than the workflow due to challenges in directly comparing both approaches. We did note a modest improvement in falls with ML-based CDS; however, it was not possible to determine that overall improvement was due to model characteristics.

Predicting Lipid-Lowering Medication Persistence after the First Cardiovascular Disease Hospitalization.

This study analyzed patient factors in medication persistence after discharge from the first hospitalization for cardiovascular disease (CVD) with the aim of predicting persistence to lipid-lowering therapy for 1 to 2 years. A subcohort having a first CVD hospitalization was selected from 313,207 patients for proportional hazard model analysis. Logistic regression, support vector machine, artificial neural networks, and boosted regression tree (BRT) models were used to predict 1- and 2-year medication persistence. Proportional hazard modeling found significant association of persistence with age, diabetes history, complication and comorbidity level, days stayed in hospital, CVD diagnosis type, in-patient procedures, and being new to therapy. BRT had the best predictive performance with c-statistic of 0.811 (0.799-0.824) for 1-year and 0.793 (0.772-0.814) for 2-year prediction using variables potentially available shortly after discharge. The results suggest that development of a machine learning-based clinical decision support tool to focus improvements in secondary prevention of CVD is feasible.

Variables Influencing Machine Learning-Based Cardiac Decision Support System: A Systematic Literature Review

Now a day, clinical decision support systems (CDSS) are widely used in the cardiac care due to the complexity of the cardiac disease. The objective of this systematic literature review (SLR) is to identify the most common variables and machine learning techniques used to build machine learning-based clinical decision support system for cardiac care. This SLR adopts the Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) format. Out of 530 papers, only 21 papers met the inclusion criteria. Amongst the 22 most common variables are age, gender, heart rate, respiration rate, systolic blood pressure and medical information variables. In addition, our results have shown that Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) are some of the most common assessment scales used in CDSS for cardiac care. Logistic regression and support vector machine are the most common machine learning techniques applied in CDSS to predict mortality and other cardiac diseases like sepsis, cardiac arrest, heart failure and septic shock. These variables and assessment tools can be used to build a machine learning-based CDSS.