Bayesian Networks in Healthcare: the chasm between research enthusiasm and clinical adoption

The remainder of this paper is organised as follows

Section 2 presents the method used to achieve the objectives of this paper; Section 3 discusses the results; Section 4 proposes the way forward; Section 5 presents our concluding remarks.

Literature on BNs in Healthcare

Figure 1 demonstrates the year on year increase of publications on BNs in healthcare both in total and when narrowed to identify the most highly relevant ones.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1:

Number of publications on medical Bayesian networks per year

Application of Preliminary Review Framework

Our objectives were to investigate: (1) generalisability of the BN development process; and, (2) BN adoption in healthcare. For inclusion, all authors agreed that papers had to possess all of the following criteria:

1. Describe a genuine BN model (or BN modelling process) rather than Bayesian statistics or naive Bayes;

2. Be targeted clearly at a medical problem; and,

3. Be intended to support clinicians or patients in decision making or prediction.

Our initial search identified a collection of 1894 papers for screening. Screening involved excluding papers: (i) that were duplicates; (ii) published outside the period 1995–2018; (iii) not published in English; (iv) not published in journal or conference proceedings; and (v) whose primary content was not healthcare related. After screening, 834 papers remained for eligibility assessment. From these, the 50 identified by the search engine as most relevant were selected. The 26 listed in Table 2 were those that met all three of the above inclusion criteria. The literature selection process is presented diagrammatically in Figure 2. Each paper was reviewed by two authors (EK and SM) and in cases of disagreement, consensus was required. In what follows we refer to papers listed in Table 2 by their number in column 1.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2:

Preliminary review literature selection

BN development process

Only 5 out of the 26 reviewed papers provided a detailed repeatable overall development process [24, 16, 1, 6, 10]. Similarly, from the 13 papers in which the BN structure was elicited from knowledge, only 4 provided a generic structure such as a template [17, 18, 19, 10]. Moreover, no paper provided a detailed explanation of how the knowledge was elicited from experts. Often, references were given to activities such as interviews that had been conducted to elicit the expert knowledge without providing details of the interview process, questions asked, or responses received from the participants. While it is not uncommon to elicit the BN structure from knowledge, eliciting BN parameters from knowledge is generally difficult. In 5 of the 26 reviewed papers, we identified BN models whose parameters were elicited partially or completely from knowledge [2, 23, 19, 11, 10]. From these 5 papers, only one provided a repeatable parameter elicitation process [24]. Similar results were also identified where BN structure and/or parameters were learned from data. From the 15 papers where the BN structure was learned from data, only 4 provided detail of the structure learning process [17, 18, 8, 16]. BN parameters were learned from data in 24 of the 26 papers. yet only 3 offered detailed description of the parameter learning process and the way missing data were treated [23, 8, 16].

BN adoption in healthcare

The frequency of elements related to BN adoption in healthcare is presented in Figure 3. Most of the reviewed papers clearly described the clinical benefit of the medical BN and provided BNs with acceptable accuracy. However, generalisability was identified only once [24]. Generalisability is important for achieving BN adoption in healthcare as a model could not be used widely in practice if it has not been shown to work on alternative populations. This strongly indicates a research gap limiting the application of BNs to populations that differ from the one used in the original training of the model. Two of the rarest elements to identify were the model’s usability and impact (either potential or actual). This agrees with our initial remark that there is a significant gap between developing an accurate model and having a useful and usable model that can be adopted and have an impact in healthcare. In this preliminary review no BN adhered to all the rules necessary for having a ‘useful’ model. Finally, and crucially, no paper in the preliminary review collection provided any indication at all that the BN models were in current clinical use.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3:

Frequency of the elements related to the BN adoption in healthcare

4. Summary and the way forward

This small-scale preliminary review found that literature on medical BNs can be broadly grouped into: (1) method-driven papers, where the focus is on a particular aspect of the modelling methodology; and, (2) case-driven papers, where the focus is on the medical application.

The key findings are that:

1. The literature lacks a well described overall BN development process;

2. Most works only briefly present the way the BN structure and parameters were elicited or learned from knowledge or data, respectively. This makes their methodology difficult, if not impossible, to replicate.

3. Important elements, such as the BN’s generalisability, usability and impact, which are necessary for having a useful model, have received little or no attention. This creates a fundamental gap between developing an accurate BN and adopting it in healthcare.

4. Despite immense interest and research effort in BNs to support clinical decision making, it appears that negligible clinical adoption of published BNs into healthcare practice has occurred.

The fact that BNs do not appear to have achieved a significant (publicly accessible) contribution to healthcare suggests that researchers in BNs for healthcare must start to address serious challenges. While our analysis used a sound review framework, it is only a preliminary review where a small number of papers have been selected based on their relevance to the search term to establish the rationale for a more comprehensive investigation. We believe systematic or scoping reviews that summarise and organise the research contributions in the domain may help. The lack of such reviews has likely led to duplication of effort, while allowing important research gaps to stay hidden. The high volume of published works and lack of significant attempts to systematically review the domain are significant motivating factors for undertaking a systematic or scoping review to summarise the literature and highlight research gaps and future directions. A robust scoping review conforming to the PRISMA statement is underway and promises further contributions.