Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
Uncertainty estimations methods for a deep learning model to aid in clinical decision-making -- a clinician's perspective
3
Zitationen
8
Autoren
2022
Jahr
Abstract
Prediction uncertainty estimation has clinical significance as it can potentially quantify prediction reliability. Clinicians may trust 'blackbox' models more if robust reliability information is available, which may lead to more models being adopted into clinical practice. There are several deep learning-inspired uncertainty estimation techniques, but few are implemented on medical datasets -- fewer on single institutional datasets/models. We sought to compare dropout variational inference (DO), test-time augmentation (TTA), conformal predictions, and single deterministic methods for estimating uncertainty using our model trained to predict feeding tube placement for 271 head and neck cancer patients treated with radiation. We compared the area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) trends for each method at various cutoffs that sought to stratify patients into 'certain' and 'uncertain' cohorts. These cutoffs were obtained by calculating the percentile "uncertainty" within the validation cohort and applied to the testing cohort. Broadly, the AUC, sensitivity, and NPV increased as the predictions were more 'certain' -- i.e., lower uncertainty estimates. However, when a majority vote (implementing 2/3 criteria: DO, TTA, conformal predictions) or a stricter approach (3/3 criteria) were used, AUC, sensitivity, and NPV improved without a notable loss in specificity or PPV. Especially for smaller, single institutional datasets, it may be important to evaluate multiple estimations techniques before incorporating a model into clinical practice.
Ähnliche Arbeiten
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
1986 · 38.821 Zit.
PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation
2018 · 37.601 Zit.
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
2009 · 37.598 Zit.
The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
2011 · 33.591 Zit.
RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
2019 · 28.654 Zit.