↓ Skip to main content

A nonparametric Bayesian method of translating machine learning scores to probabilities in clinical decision support

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A nonparametric Bayesian method of translating machine learning scores to probabilities in clinical decision support
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12859-017-1736-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brian Connolly, K. Bretonnel Cohen, Daniel Santel, Ulya Bayram, John Pestian

Abstract

Probabilistic assessments of clinical care are essential for quality care. Yet, machine learning, which supports this care process has been limited to categorical results. To maximize its usefulness, it is important to find novel approaches that calibrate the ML output with a likelihood scale. Current state-of-the-art calibration methods are generally accurate and applicable to many ML models, but improved granularity and accuracy of such methods would increase the information available for clinical decision making. This novel non-parametric Bayesian approach is demonstrated on a variety of data sets, including simulated classifier outputs, biomedical data sets from the University of California, Irvine (UCI) Machine Learning Repository, and a clinical data set built to determine suicide risk from the language of emergency department patients. The method is first demonstrated on support-vector machine (SVM) models, which generally produce well-behaved, well understood scores. The method produces calibrations that are comparable to the state-of-the-art Bayesian Binning in Quantiles (BBQ) method when the SVM models are able to effectively separate cases and controls. However, as the SVM models' ability to discriminate classes decreases, our approach yields more granular and dynamic calibrated probabilities comparing to the BBQ method. Improvements in granularity and range are even more dramatic when the discrimination between the classes is artificially degraded by replacing the SVM model with an ad hoc k-means classifier. The method allows both clinicians and patients to have a more nuanced view of the output of an ML model, allowing better decision making. The method is demonstrated on simulated data, various biomedical data sets and a clinical data set, to which diverse ML methods are applied. Trivially extending the method to (non-ML) clinical scores is also discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 88 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 22%
Researcher 13 15%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Student > Master 7 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 24 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 23%
Computer Science 15 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 7%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 28 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 September 2017.
All research outputs
#5,975,657
of 24,287,697 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#2,053
of 7,511 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,904
of 321,145 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#22
of 90 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,287,697 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,511 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 321,145 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 90 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.