Towards Better Ways to Assess Predictive Computing in Medicine: On Reliability, Robustness, and Utility
Big Data Analysis and Artificial Intelligence for Medical Sciences, Page: 309-337
2024
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Book Chapter Description
Computational classification systems built using machine learning (ML) techniques are increasingly being evaluated and employed in medical settings for a number of purposes and applications, including diagnosis, prognosis, and risk stratification. However, evaluation and validation practices that are commonly used and adopted in the application of ML to other disciplines are unlikely to be meaningfully applicable to medicine. In fact, otherwise, technically sound systems have been found to perform poorly in real settings, a concept that has been termed the “last mile of implementation.” In this chapter, we will focus on three main factors underlying the so-called last mile: the impact of observer variability on ground truth reliability; the meaningful and appropriateness of commonly adopted performance measures; and the issue of replicability in ML studies. We will discuss the above mentioned issues, and we will delineate possible solutions and concepts to address them.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know