Machine learning-based prediction models in medical decision-making in kidney disease: patient, caregiver, and clinician perspectives on trust and appropriate use.

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association Pub Date : 2024-11-14 DOI:10.1093/jamia/ocae255
Jessica Sperling, Whitney Welsh, Erin Haseley, Stella Quenstedt, Perusi B Muhigaba, Adrian Brown, Patti Ephraim, Tariq Shafi, Michael Waitzkin, David Casarett, Benjamin A Goldstein
{"title":"Machine learning-based prediction models in medical decision-making in kidney disease: patient, caregiver, and clinician perspectives on trust and appropriate use.","authors":"Jessica Sperling, Whitney Welsh, Erin Haseley, Stella Quenstedt, Perusi B Muhigaba, Adrian Brown, Patti Ephraim, Tariq Shafi, Michael Waitzkin, David Casarett, Benjamin A Goldstein","doi":"10.1093/jamia/ocae255","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aims to improve the ethical use of machine learning (ML)-based clinical prediction models (CPMs) in shared decision-making for patients with kidney failure on dialysis. We explore factors that inform acceptability, interpretability, and implementation of ML-based CPMs among multiple constituent groups.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We collected and analyzed qualitative data from focus groups with varied end users, including: dialysis support providers (clinical providers and additional dialysis support providers such as dialysis clinic staff and social workers); patients; patients' caregivers (n = 52).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants were broadly accepting of ML-based CPMs, but with concerns on data sources, factors included in the model, and accuracy. Use was desired in conjunction with providers' views and explanations. Differences among respondent types were minimal overall but most prevalent in discussions of CPM presentation and model use.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusion: </strong>Evidence of acceptability of ML-based CPM usage provides support for ethical use, but numerous specific considerations in acceptability, model construction, and model use for shared clinical decision-making must be considered. There are specific steps that could be taken by data scientists and health systems to engender use that is accepted by end users and facilitates trust, but there are also ongoing barriers or challenges in addressing desires for use. This study contributes to emerging literature on interpretability, mechanisms for sharing complexities, including uncertainty regarding the model results, and implications for decision-making. It examines numerous stakeholder groups including providers, patients, and caregivers to provide specific considerations that can influence health system use and provide a basis for future research.</p>","PeriodicalId":50016,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocae255","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This study aims to improve the ethical use of machine learning (ML)-based clinical prediction models (CPMs) in shared decision-making for patients with kidney failure on dialysis. We explore factors that inform acceptability, interpretability, and implementation of ML-based CPMs among multiple constituent groups.

Materials and methods: We collected and analyzed qualitative data from focus groups with varied end users, including: dialysis support providers (clinical providers and additional dialysis support providers such as dialysis clinic staff and social workers); patients; patients' caregivers (n = 52).

Results: Participants were broadly accepting of ML-based CPMs, but with concerns on data sources, factors included in the model, and accuracy. Use was desired in conjunction with providers' views and explanations. Differences among respondent types were minimal overall but most prevalent in discussions of CPM presentation and model use.

Discussion and conclusion: Evidence of acceptability of ML-based CPM usage provides support for ethical use, but numerous specific considerations in acceptability, model construction, and model use for shared clinical decision-making must be considered. There are specific steps that could be taken by data scientists and health systems to engender use that is accepted by end users and facilitates trust, but there are also ongoing barriers or challenges in addressing desires for use. This study contributes to emerging literature on interpretability, mechanisms for sharing complexities, including uncertainty regarding the model results, and implications for decision-making. It examines numerous stakeholder groups including providers, patients, and caregivers to provide specific considerations that can influence health system use and provide a basis for future research.

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
肾病医疗决策中基于机器学习的预测模型:患者、护理人员和临床医生对信任和适当使用的看法。
研究目的本研究旨在改善基于机器学习(ML)的临床预测模型(CPM)在透析肾衰竭患者共同决策中的伦理使用。我们探讨了多个组成群体对基于机器学习的临床预测模型的可接受性、可解释性和实施情况的影响因素:我们收集并分析了来自焦点小组的定性数据,这些焦点小组由不同的终端用户组成,包括:透析支持服务提供者(临床服务提供者和其他透析支持服务提供者,如透析诊所工作人员和社会工作者);患者;患者的护理人员(n = 52):结果:参与者普遍接受基于 ML 的 CPM,但对数据来源、模型中包含的因素和准确性表示担忧。他们希望结合医疗服务提供者的观点和解释来使用。受访者类型之间的差异总体上很小,但在 CPM 演示和模型使用的讨论中最为普遍:基于 ML 的 CPM 使用的可接受性证据为道德使用提供了支持,但在可接受性、模型构建和临床决策共享模型使用方面必须考虑许多具体因素。数据科学家和医疗系统可以采取一些具体步骤来促进最终用户接受和信任的使用,但在满足使用愿望方面也存在持续的障碍或挑战。本研究为有关可解释性、复杂性共享机制(包括模型结果的不确定性)以及对决策的影响的新兴文献做出了贡献。它对包括医疗服务提供者、患者和护理人员在内的众多利益相关者群体进行了研究,以提供可影响医疗系统使用的具体考虑因素,并为未来的研究奠定基础。
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
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 医学-计算机:跨学科应用
CiteScore
14.50
自引率
7.80%
发文量
230
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: JAMIA is AMIA''s premier peer-reviewed journal for biomedical and health informatics. Covering the full spectrum of activities in the field, JAMIA includes informatics articles in the areas of clinical care, clinical research, translational science, implementation science, imaging, education, consumer health, public health, and policy. JAMIA''s articles describe innovative informatics research and systems that help to advance biomedical science and to promote health. Case reports, perspectives and reviews also help readers stay connected with the most important informatics developments in implementation, policy and education.
期刊最新文献
Efficacy of the mLab App: a randomized clinical trial for increasing HIV testing uptake using mobile technology. Machine learning-based prediction models in medical decision-making in kidney disease: patient, caregiver, and clinician perspectives on trust and appropriate use. Research for all: building a diverse researcher community for the All of Us Research Program. Learning health system linchpins: information exchange and a common data model. Oncointerpreter.ai enables interactive, personalized summarization of cancer diagnostics data.
×
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