An Approach for Combining Clinical Judgment with Machine Learning to Inform Medical Decision Making: Analysis of Nonemergency Surgery Strategies for Acute Appendicitis in Patients with Multiple Long-Term Conditions.
S Moler-Zapata, A Hutchings, R Grieve, R Hinchliffe, N Smart, S R Moonesinghe, G Bellingan, R Vohra, S Moug, S O'Neill
{"title":"An Approach for Combining Clinical Judgment with Machine Learning to Inform Medical Decision Making: Analysis of Nonemergency Surgery Strategies for Acute Appendicitis in Patients with Multiple Long-Term Conditions.","authors":"S Moler-Zapata, A Hutchings, R Grieve, R Hinchliffe, N Smart, S R Moonesinghe, G Bellingan, R Vohra, S Moug, S O'Neill","doi":"10.1177/0272989X241289336","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Machine learning (ML) methods can identify complex patterns of treatment effect heterogeneity. However, before ML can help to personalize decision making, transparent approaches must be developed that draw on clinical judgment. We develop an approach that combines clinical judgment with ML to generate appropriate comparative effectiveness evidence for informing decision making.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We motivate this approach in evaluating the effectiveness of nonemergency surgery (NES) strategies, such as antibiotic therapy, for people with acute appendicitis who have multiple long-term conditions (MLTCs) compared with emergency surgery (ES). Our 4-stage approach 1) draws on clinical judgment about which patient characteristics and morbidities modify the relative effectiveness of NES; 2) selects additional covariates from a high-dimensional covariate space (<i>P</i> > 500) by applying an ML approach, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO), to large-scale administrative data (<i>N</i> = 24,312); 3) generates estimates of comparative effectiveness for relevant subgroups; and 4) presents evidence in a suitable form for decision making.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This approach provides useful evidence for clinically relevant subgroups. We found that overall NES strategies led to increases in the mean number of days alive and out-of-hospital compared with ES, but estimates differed across subgroups, ranging from 21.2 (95% confidence interval: 1.8 to 40.5) for patients with chronic heart failure and chronic kidney disease to -10.4 (-29.8 to 9.1) for patients with cancer and hypertension. Our interactive tool for visualizing ML output allows for findings to be customized according to the specific needs of the clinical decision maker.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This principled approach of combining clinical judgment with an ML approach can improve trust, relevance, and usefulness of the evidence generated for clinical decision making.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>Machine learning (ML) methods have many potential applications in medical decision making, but the lack of model interpretability and usability constitutes an important barrier for the wider adoption of ML evidence in practice.We develop a 4-stage approach for integrating clinical judgment into the way an ML approach is used to estimate and report comparative effectiveness.We illustrate the approach in undertaking an evaluation of nonemergency surgery (NES) strategies for acute appendicitis in patients with multiple long-term conditions and find that NES strategies lead to better outcomes compared with emergency surgery and that the effects differ across subgroups.We develop an interactive tool for visualizing the results of this study that allows findings to be customized according to the user's preferences.</p>","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":" ","pages":"944-960"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11542320/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X241289336","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Machine learning (ML) methods can identify complex patterns of treatment effect heterogeneity. However, before ML can help to personalize decision making, transparent approaches must be developed that draw on clinical judgment. We develop an approach that combines clinical judgment with ML to generate appropriate comparative effectiveness evidence for informing decision making.
Methods: We motivate this approach in evaluating the effectiveness of nonemergency surgery (NES) strategies, such as antibiotic therapy, for people with acute appendicitis who have multiple long-term conditions (MLTCs) compared with emergency surgery (ES). Our 4-stage approach 1) draws on clinical judgment about which patient characteristics and morbidities modify the relative effectiveness of NES; 2) selects additional covariates from a high-dimensional covariate space (P > 500) by applying an ML approach, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO), to large-scale administrative data (N = 24,312); 3) generates estimates of comparative effectiveness for relevant subgroups; and 4) presents evidence in a suitable form for decision making.
Results: This approach provides useful evidence for clinically relevant subgroups. We found that overall NES strategies led to increases in the mean number of days alive and out-of-hospital compared with ES, but estimates differed across subgroups, ranging from 21.2 (95% confidence interval: 1.8 to 40.5) for patients with chronic heart failure and chronic kidney disease to -10.4 (-29.8 to 9.1) for patients with cancer and hypertension. Our interactive tool for visualizing ML output allows for findings to be customized according to the specific needs of the clinical decision maker.
Conclusions: This principled approach of combining clinical judgment with an ML approach can improve trust, relevance, and usefulness of the evidence generated for clinical decision making.
Highlights: Machine learning (ML) methods have many potential applications in medical decision making, but the lack of model interpretability and usability constitutes an important barrier for the wider adoption of ML evidence in practice.We develop a 4-stage approach for integrating clinical judgment into the way an ML approach is used to estimate and report comparative effectiveness.We illustrate the approach in undertaking an evaluation of nonemergency surgery (NES) strategies for acute appendicitis in patients with multiple long-term conditions and find that NES strategies lead to better outcomes compared with emergency surgery and that the effects differ across subgroups.We develop an interactive tool for visualizing the results of this study that allows findings to be customized according to the user's preferences.
背景:机器学习(ML)方法可以识别治疗效果异质性的复杂模式。然而,在机器学习方法帮助进行个性化决策之前,必须开发出能够利用临床判断的透明方法。我们开发了一种方法,将临床判断与 ML 结合起来,生成适当的比较效果证据,为决策提供信息:我们在评估抗生素治疗等非急诊手术(NES)策略对患有多种长期疾病(MLTCs)的急性阑尾炎患者的疗效与急诊手术(ES)的疗效时采用了这种方法。我们的方法分为四个阶段:1)借鉴临床判断,了解哪些患者特征和发病情况会改变NES的相对有效性;2)通过对大规模管理数据(N = 24,312)应用ML方法--最小绝对收缩和选择算子(LASSO),从高维协变量空间(P > 500)中选择额外的协变量;3)生成相关亚组的比较有效性估计值;4)以适当的形式提供证据,供决策参考:结果:这种方法为临床相关亚组提供了有用的证据。我们发现,与ES相比,NES策略总体上增加了平均存活天数和院外天数,但不同亚组的估计值不同,从慢性心力衰竭和慢性肾病患者的21.2(95%置信区间:1.8至40.5)到癌症和高血压患者的-10.4(-29.8至9.1)不等。我们用于可视化 ML 输出的交互式工具可以根据临床决策者的具体需求对研究结果进行定制:结论:这种将临床判断与 ML 方法相结合的原则性方法可以提高为临床决策生成的证据的可信度、相关性和实用性:机器学习(ML)方法在医疗决策中有许多潜在的应用,但缺乏模型的可解释性和可用性是在实践中更广泛采用 ML 证据的一个重要障碍。我们开发了一种将临床判断与 ML 方法相结合的四阶段方法,用于估计和报告比较效果。我们在对患有多种长期疾病的急性阑尾炎患者的非急诊手术(NES)策略进行评估时对该方法进行了说明,并发现与急诊手术相比,非急诊手术策略能带来更好的疗效,而且不同亚组的疗效也不尽相同。
期刊介绍:
Medical Decision Making offers rigorous and systematic approaches to decision making that are designed to improve the health and clinical care of individuals and to assist with health care policy development. Using the fundamentals of decision analysis and theory, economic evaluation, and evidence based quality assessment, Medical Decision Making presents both theoretical and practical statistical and modeling techniques and methods from a variety of disciplines.