Rethinking PICO in the Machine Learning Era: ML-PICO

被引:7
作者
Liu, Xinran [1 ,2 ]
Anstey, James [1 ]
Li, Ron [3 ]
Sarabu, Chethan [4 ,5 ]
Sono, Reiri [2 ]
Butte, Atul J. [6 ]
机构
[1] Univ Calif San Francisco, Div Hosp Med, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
[2] Univ Calif San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
[3] Stanford Univ, Div Hosp Med, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
[4] Doc Ai, Palo Alto, CA USA
[5] Stanford Univ, Dept Pediat, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
[6] Univ Calif San Francisco, Bakar Computat Hlth Sci Inst, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
来源
APPLIED CLINICAL INFORMATICS | 2021年 / 12卷 / 02期
关键词
machine learning; electronic health record; artificial intelligence; ARTIFICIAL-INTELLIGENCE; USERS GUIDES; SEPSIS; PREDICTION; IMPLEMENTATION; MORTALITY;
D O I
10.1055/s-0041-1729752
中图分类号
R-058 [];
学科分类号
摘要
Background Machine learning (ML) has captured the attention of many clinicians who may not have formal training in this area but are otherwise increasingly exposed to ML literature that may be relevant to their clinical specialties. ML papers that follow an outcomes-based research format can be assessed using clinical research appraisal frameworks such as PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome). However, the PICO frameworks strain when applied to ML papers that create new ML models, which are akin to diagnostic tests. There is a need for a new framework to help assess such papers. Objective We propose a new framework to help clinicians systematically read and evaluate medical ML papers whose aim is to create a new ML model: ML-PICO (Machine Learning, Population, Identification, Crosscheck, Outcomes). We describe how the ML-PICO framework can be applied toward appraising literature describing ML models for health care. Conclusion The relevance of ML to practitioners of clinical medicine is steadily increasing with a growing body of literature. Therefore, it is increasingly important for clinicians to be familiar with how to assess and best utilize these tools. In this paper we have described a practical framework on how to read ML papers that create a new ML model (or diagnostic test): ML-PICO. We hope that this can be used by clinicians to better evaluate the quality and utility of ML papers.
引用
收藏
页码:407 / 416
页数:10
相关论文
共 62 条
  • [1] Machine Learning and the Cancer-Diagnosis Problem - No Gold Standard
    Adamson, Adewole S.
    Welch, H. Gilbert
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2019, 381 (24) : 2285 - 2287
  • [2] Discrimination and Calibration of Clinical Prediction Models Users' Guides to the Medical Literature
    Alba, Ana Carolina
    Agoritsas, Thomas
    Walsh, Michael
    Hanna, Steven
    Iorio, Alfonso
    Devereaux, P. J.
    McGinn, Thomas
    Guyatt, Gordon
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2017, 318 (14): : 1377 - 1384
  • [3] [Anonymous], 2016, MIT CRITICAL DATA
  • [4] [Anonymous], AUTOMATIC DIAGNOSIS
  • [5] Machine learning classifiers can predict Gleason pattern 4 prostate cancer with greater accuracy than experienced radiologists
    Antonelli, Michela
    Johnston, Edward W.
    Dikaios, Nikolaos
    Cheung, King K.
    Sidhu, Harbir S.
    Appayya, Mrishta B.
    Giganti, Francesco
    Simmons, Lucy A. M.
    Freeman, Alex
    Allen, Clare
    Ahmed, Hashim U.
    Atkinson, David
    Ourselin, Sebastien
    Punwani, Shonit
    [J]. EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2019, 29 (09) : 4754 - 4764
  • [6] Aslam Sadaf, 2010, Indian J Sex Transm Dis AIDS, V31, P47, DOI 10.4103/0253-7184.69003
  • [7] Big Data and Machine Learning in Health Care
    Beam, Andrew L.
    Kohane, Isaac S.
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2018, 319 (13): : 1317 - 1318
  • [8] Botchkarev A., 2019, IJIKM, V14, P45, DOI [DOI 10.28945/4184, 10.28945/4184]
  • [9] Reporting and Methods in Clinical Prediction Research: A Systematic Review
    Bouwmeester, Walter
    Zuithoff, Nicolaas P. A.
    Mallett, Susan
    Geerlings, Mirjam I.
    Vergouwe, Yvonne
    Steyerberg, Ewout W.
    Altman, Douglas G.
    Moons, Karel G. M.
    [J]. PLOS MEDICINE, 2012, 9 (05)
  • [10] Effects of Aspirin for Primary Prevention in Persons with Diabetes Mellitus
    Bowman, Louise
    Mafham, Marion
    Wallendszus, Karl
    Stevens, Will
    Buck, Georgina
    Barton, Jill
    Murphy, Kevin
    Aung, Theingi
    Haynes, Richard
    Cox, Jolyon
    Murawska, Aleksandra
    Young, Allen
    Lay, Michael
    Chen, Fang
    Sammons, Emily
    Waters, Emma
    Adler, Amanda
    Bodansky, Jonathan
    Farmer, Andrew
    McPherson, Roger
    Neil, Andrew
    Simpson, David
    Peto, Richard
    Baigent, Colin
    Collins, Rory
    Parish, Sarah
    Armitage, Jane
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2018, 379 (16) : 1529 - 1539