Search

Importance: Artificial intelligence (AI) could support clinicians when diagnosing hospitalized patients; however, systematic bias in AI models could worsen clinician diagnostic accuracy. Recent regulatory guidance has called for AI models to include explanations to mitigate errors made by models, but the effectiveness of this strategy has not been established., Objectives: To evaluate the impact of systematically biased AI on clinician diagnostic accuracy and to determine if image-based AI model explanations can mitigate model errors., Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical vignette survey study administered between April 2022 and January 2023 across 13 US states involving hospitalist physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants., Interventions: Clinicians were shown 9 clinical vignettes of patients hospitalized with acute respiratory failure, including their presenting symptoms, physical examination, laboratory results, and chest radiographs. Clinicians were then asked to determine the likelihood of pneumonia, heart failure, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease as the underlying cause(s) of each patient's acute respiratory failure. To establish baseline diagnostic accuracy, clinicians were shown 2 vignettes without AI model input. Clinicians were then randomized to see 6 vignettes with AI model input with or without AI model explanations. Among these 6 vignettes, 3 vignettes included standard-model predictions, and 3 vignettes included systematically biased model predictions., Main Outcomes and Measures: Clinician diagnostic accuracy for pneumonia, heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease., Results: Median participant age was 34 years (IQR, 31-39) and 241 (57.7%) were female. Four hundred fifty-seven clinicians were randomized and completed at least 1 vignette, with 231 randomized to AI model predictions without explanations, and 226 randomized to AI model predictions with explanations. Clinicians' baseline diagnostic accuracy was 73.0% (95% CI, 68.3% to 77.8%) for the 3 diagnoses. When shown a standard AI model without explanations, clinician accuracy increased over baseline by 2.9 percentage points (95% CI, 0.5 to 5.2) and by 4.4 percentage points (95% CI, 2.0 to 6.9) when clinicians were also shown AI model explanations. Systematically biased AI model predictions decreased clinician accuracy by 11.3 percentage points (95% CI, 7.2 to 15.5) compared with baseline and providing biased AI model predictions with explanations decreased clinician accuracy by 9.1 percentage points (95% CI, 4.9 to 13.2) compared with baseline, representing a nonsignificant improvement of 2.3 percentage points (95% CI, -2.7 to 7.2) compared with the systematically biased AI model., Conclusions and Relevance: Although standard AI models improve diagnostic accuracy, systematically biased AI models reduced diagnostic accuracy, and commonly used image-based AI model explanations did not mitigate this harmful effect., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT06098950.

OBJECTIVE An estimated 293,300 healthcare-associated cases of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) occur annually in the United States. To date, research has focused on developing risk prediction models for CDI that work well across institutions. However, this one-size-fits-all approach ignores important hospital-specific factors. We focus on a generalizable method for building facility-specific models. We demonstrate the applicability of the approach using electronic health records (EHR) from the University of Michigan Hospitals (UM) and the Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH). METHODS We utilized EHR data from 191,014 adult admissions to UM and 65,718 adult admissions to MGH. We extracted patient demographics, admission details, patient history, and daily hospitalization details, resulting in 4,836 features from patients at UM and 1,837 from patients at MGH. We used L2 regularized logistic regression to learn the models, and we measured the discriminative performance of the models on held-out data from each hospital. RESULTS Using the UM and MGH test data, the models achieved area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) values of 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80-0.84) and 0.75 ( 95% CI, 0.73-0.78), respectively. Some predictive factors were shared between the 2 models, but many of the top predictive factors differed between facilities. CONCLUSION A data-driven approach to building models for estimating daily patient risk for CDI was used to build institution-specific models at 2 large hospitals with different patient populations and EHR systems. In contrast to traditional approaches that focus on developing models that apply across hospitals, our generalizable approach yields risk-stratification models tailored to an institution. These hospital-specific models allow for earlier and more accurate identification of high-risk patients and better targeting of infection prevention strategies. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;39:425-433.

Background: Data-driven risk stratification models built using data from a single hospital often have a paucity of training data. However, leveraging data from other hospitals can be challenging owing to institutional differences with patients and with data coding and capture., Objective: To investigate three approaches to learning hospital-specific predictions about the risk of hospital-associated infection with Clostridium difficile, and perform a comparative analysis of the value of different ways of using external data to enhance hospital-specific predictions., Materials and Methods: We evaluated each approach on 132 853 admissions from three hospitals, varying in size and location. The first approach was a single-task approach, in which only training data from the target hospital (ie, the hospital for which the model was intended) were used. The second used only data from the other two hospitals. The third approach jointly incorporated data from all hospitals while seeking a solution in the target space., Results: The relative performance of the three different approaches was found to be sensitive to the hospital selected as the target. However, incorporating data from all hospitals consistently had the highest performance., Discussion: The results characterize the challenges and opportunities that come with (1) using data or models from collections of hospitals without adapting them to the site at which the model will be used, and (2) using only local data to build models for small institutions or rare events., Conclusions: We show how external data from other hospitals can be successfully and efficiently incorporated into hospital-specific models., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)