Search for: All records

Automated curation of noisy external data in the medical domain has long been in high demand, as AI technologies need to be validated using various sources with clean, annotated data. Identifying the variance between internal and external sources is a fundamental step in curating a high-quality dataset, as the data distributions from different sources can vary significantly and subsequently affect the performance of AI models. The primary challenges for detecting data shifts are - (1) accessing private data across healthcare institutions for manual detection and (2) the lack of automated approaches to learn efficient shift-data representation without training samples. To overcome these problems, we propose an automated pipeline called MedShift to detect top-level shift samples and evaluate the significance of shift data without sharing data between internal and external organizations. MedShift employs unsupervised anomaly detectors to learn the internal distribution and identify samples showing significant shiftness for external datasets, and then compares their performance. To quantify the effects of detected shift data, we train a multi-class classifier that learns internal domain knowledge and evaluates the classification performance for each class in external domains after dropping the shift data. We also propose a data quality metric to quantify the dissimilarity between internal and external datasets. We verify the efficacy of MedShift using musculoskeletal radiographs (MURA) and chest X-ray datasets from multiple external sources. Our experiments show that our proposed shift data detection pipeline can be beneficial for medical centers to curate high-quality datasets more efficiently. 

Various forms of artificial intelligence (AI) applications are being deployed and used in many healthcare systems. As the use of these applications increases, we are learning the failures of these models and how they can perpetuate bias. With these new lessons, we need to prioritize bias evaluation and mitigation for radiology applications; all the while not ignoring the impact of changes in the larger enterprise AI deployment which may have downstream impact on performance of AI models. In this paper, we provide an updated review of known pitfalls causing AI bias and discuss strategies for mitigating these biases within the context of AI deployment in the larger healthcare enterprise. We describe these pitfalls by framing them in the larger AI lifecycle from problem definition, data set selection and curation, model training and deployment emphasizing that bias exists across a spectrum and is a sequela of a combination of both human and machine factors.

 

Abstract Real-time execution of machine learning (ML) pipelines on radiology images is difficult due to limited computing resources in clinical environments, whereas running them in research clusters requires efficient data transfer capabilities. We developed Niffler, an open-source Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) framework that enables ML and processing pipelines in research clusters by efficiently retrieving images from the hospitals’ PACS and extracting the metadata from the images. We deployed Niffler at our institution (Emory Healthcare, the largest healthcare network in the state of Georgia) and retrieved data from 715 scanners spanning 12 sites, up to 350 GB/day continuously in real-time as a DICOM data stream over the past 2 years. We also used Niffler to retrieve images bulk on-demand based on user-provided filters to facilitate several research projects. This paper presents the architecture and three such use cases of Niffler. First, we executed an IVC filter detection and segmentation pipeline on abdominal radiographs in real-time, which was able to classify 989 test images with an accuracy of 96.0%. Second, we applied the Niffler Metadata Extractor to understand the operational efficiency of individual MRI systems based on calculated metrics. We benchmarked the accuracy of the calculated exam time windows by comparing Niffler against the Clinical Data Warehouse (CDW). Niffler accurately identified the scanners’ examination timeframes and idling times, whereas CDW falsely depicted several exam overlaps due to human errors. Third, with metadata extracted from the images by Niffler, we identified scanners with misconfigured time and reconfigured five scanners. Our evaluations highlight how Niffler enables real-time ML and processing pipelines in a research cluster. 

The strain on healthcare resources brought forth by the recent COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for efficient resource planning and allocation through the prediction of future consumption. Machine learning can predict resource utilization such as the need for hospitalization based on past medical data stored in electronic medical records (EMR). We conducted this study on 3194 patients (46% male with mean age 56.7 (±16.8), 56% African American, 7% Hispanic) flagged as COVID-19 positive cases in 12 centers under Emory Healthcare network from February 2020 to September 2020, to assess whether a COVID-19 positive patient’s need for hospitalization can be predicted at the time of RT-PCR test using the EMR data prior to the test. Five main modalities of EMR, i.e., demographics, medication, past medical procedures, comorbidities, and laboratory results, were used as features for predictive modeling, both individually and fused together using late, middle, and early fusion. Models were evaluated in terms of precision, recall, F1-score (within 95% confidence interval). The early fusion model is the most effective predictor with 84% overall F1-score [CI 82.1–86.1]. The predictive performance of the model drops by 6 % when using recent clinical data while omitting the long-term medical history. Feature importance analysis indicates that history of cardiovascular disease, emergency room visits in the past year prior to testing, and demographic factors are predictive of the disease trajectory. We conclude that fusion modeling using medical history and current treatment data can forecast the need for hospitalization for patients infected with COVID-19 at the time of the RT-PCR test.

 

Purpose: Despite tremendous gains from deep learning and the promise of AI in medicine to improve diagnosis and save costs, there exists a large translational gap to implement and use AI products in real-world clinical situations. Adoption of standards like the TRIPOD, CONSORT, and CLAIM checklists is increasing to improve the peer review process and reporting of AI tools. However, no such standards exist for product level review. Methods: A review of the clinical trials shows a paucity of evidence for radiology AI products; thus, we developed a 10-question assessment tool for reviewing AI products with an emphasis on their validation and result dissemination. We applied the assessment tool to commercial and open-source algorithms used for diagnosis to extract evidence on the clinical utility of the tools. Results: We find that there is limited technical information on methodologies for FDA approved algorithms compared to open source products, likely due to concerns of intellectual property. Furthermore, we find that FDA approved products use much smaller datasets compared to open-source AI tools, as the terms of use of public datasets are limited to academic and non-commercial entities which preclude their use in commercial products. Conclusion: Overall, we observe a broad spectrum of maturity and clinical use of AI products, but a large gap exists in exploring the actual performance of AI tools in clinical practice.