Using artificial intelligence in medical school admissions screening to decrease inter- and intra-observer variability.

IF 2.5 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES JAMIA Open Pub Date : 2023-04-01 DOI:10.1093/jamiaopen/ooad011
Graham Keir, Willie Hu, Christopher G Filippi, Lisa Ellenbogen, Rona Woldenberg
{"title":"Using artificial intelligence in medical school admissions screening to decrease inter- and intra-observer variability.","authors":"Graham Keir,&nbsp;Willie Hu,&nbsp;Christopher G Filippi,&nbsp;Lisa Ellenbogen,&nbsp;Rona Woldenberg","doi":"10.1093/jamiaopen/ooad011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Inter- and intra-observer variability is a concern for medical school admissions. Artificial intelligence (AI) may present an opportunity to apply a fair standard to all applicants systematically and yet maintain sensitivity to nuances that have been a part of traditional screening methods.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Data from 5 years of medical school applications were retrospectively accrued and analyzed. The applicants (<i>m</i> = 22 258 applicants) were split 60%-20%-20% into a training set (<i>m</i> = 13 354), validation set (<i>m</i> = 4452), and test set (<i>m</i> = 4452). An AI model was trained and evaluated with the ground truth being whether a given applicant was invited for an interview. In addition, a \"real-world\" evaluation was conducted simultaneously within an admissions cycle to observe how it would perform if utilized.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The algorithm had an accuracy of 95% on the training set, 88% on the validation set, and 88% on the test set. The area under the curve of the test set was 0.93. The SHapely Additive exPlanations (SHAP) values demonstrated that the model utilizes features in a concordant manner with current admissions rubrics. By using a combined human and AI evaluation process, the accuracy of the process was demonstrated to be 96% on the \"real-world\" evaluation with a negative predictive value of 0.97.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusion: </strong>These results demonstrate the feasibility of an AI approach applied to medical school admissions screening decision-making. Model explainability and supplemental analyses help ensure that the model makes decisions as intended.</p>","PeriodicalId":36278,"journal":{"name":"JAMIA Open","volume":"6 1","pages":"ooad011"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9936956/pdf/","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMIA Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jamiaopen/ooad011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Objectives: Inter- and intra-observer variability is a concern for medical school admissions. Artificial intelligence (AI) may present an opportunity to apply a fair standard to all applicants systematically and yet maintain sensitivity to nuances that have been a part of traditional screening methods.

Material and methods: Data from 5 years of medical school applications were retrospectively accrued and analyzed. The applicants (m = 22 258 applicants) were split 60%-20%-20% into a training set (m = 13 354), validation set (m = 4452), and test set (m = 4452). An AI model was trained and evaluated with the ground truth being whether a given applicant was invited for an interview. In addition, a "real-world" evaluation was conducted simultaneously within an admissions cycle to observe how it would perform if utilized.

Results: The algorithm had an accuracy of 95% on the training set, 88% on the validation set, and 88% on the test set. The area under the curve of the test set was 0.93. The SHapely Additive exPlanations (SHAP) values demonstrated that the model utilizes features in a concordant manner with current admissions rubrics. By using a combined human and AI evaluation process, the accuracy of the process was demonstrated to be 96% on the "real-world" evaluation with a negative predictive value of 0.97.

Discussion and conclusion: These results demonstrate the feasibility of an AI approach applied to medical school admissions screening decision-making. Model explainability and supplemental analyses help ensure that the model makes decisions as intended.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在医学院招生筛选中使用人工智能来减少观察者之间和内部的可变性。
目的:观察者之间和内部的可变性是医学院招生的一个问题。人工智能(AI)可能提供了一个机会,可以系统地对所有申请人适用公平的标准,同时保持对传统筛选方法中细微差别的敏感性。材料和方法:回顾性收集和分析5年的医学院申请资料。申请人(m = 22 258名申请人)被分成60%-20%-20%的训练集(m = 13 354)、验证集(m = 4452)和测试集(m = 4452)。一个人工智能模型被训练和评估,其基本事实是给定的申请人是否被邀请参加面试。此外,在招生周期内同时进行了“现实世界”评估,以观察如果使用它会如何执行。结果:算法在训练集上的准确率为95%,在验证集上的准确率为88%,在测试集上的准确率为88%。测试集的曲线下面积为0.93。SHapely加性解释(SHAP)值表明,该模型以与当前招生规则一致的方式利用了特征。通过使用人工智能和人工智能相结合的评估过程,该过程在“真实世界”评估中的准确率为96%,负预测值为0.97。讨论与结论:这些结果证明了将人工智能方法应用于医学院招生筛选决策的可行性。模型的可解释性和补充分析有助于确保模型按照预期做出决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
JAMIA Open
JAMIA Open Medicine-Health Informatics
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
4.80%
发文量
102
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Implementation of a rule-based algorithm to find patients eligible for cancer clinical trials. Implications of mappings between International Classification of Diseases clinical diagnosis codes and Human Phenotype Ontology terms. MMFP-Tableau: enabling precision mitochondrial medicine through integration, visualization, and analytics of clinical and research health system electronic data. Addressing ethical issues in healthcare artificial intelligence using a lifecycle-informed process. Development of an evidence- and consensus-based Digital Healthcare Equity Framework.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1