RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 The Challenge Dataset – simple evaluation for safe, transparent healthcare AI deployment
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2022.12.15.22280619
DO 10.1101/2022.12.15.22280619
A1 Sanayei, James K.
A1 Abdalla, Mohamed
A1 Ahluwalia, Monish
A1 Seyyed-Kalantari, Laleh
A1 Minotti, Simona
A1 Fine, Benjamin A.
YR 2022
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/12/16/2022.12.15.22280619.abstract
AB In this paper, we demonstrate the use of a “Challenge Dataset”: a small, site-specific, manually curated dataset – enriched with uncommon, risk-exposing, and clinically important edge cases – that can facilitate pre-deployment evaluation and identification of clinically relevant AI performance deficits. The five major steps of the Challenge Dataset process are described in detail, including defining use cases, edge case selection, dataset size determination, dataset compilation, and model evaluation. Evaluating performance of four chest X-ray classifiers (one third-party developer model and three models trained on open-source datasets) on a small, manually curated dataset (410 images), we observe a generalization gap of 20.7% (13.5% - 29.1%) for sensitivity and 10.5% (4.3% - 18.3%) for specificity compared to developer-reported values. Performance decreases further when evaluated against edge cases (critical findings: 43.4% [27.4% - 59.8%]; unusual findings: 45.9% [23.1% - 68.7%]; solitary findings 45.9% [23.1% - 68.7%]). Expert manual audit revealed examples of critical model failure (e.g., missed pneumomediastinum) with potential for patient harm. As a measure of effort, we find that the minimum required number of Challenge Dataset cases is about 1% of the annual total for our site (approximately 400 of 40,000). Overall, we find that the Challenge Dataset process provides a method for local pre-deployment evaluation of medical imaging AI models, allowing imaging providers to identify both deficits in model generalizability and specific points of failure prior to clinical deployment.Competing Interest StatementBF is a shareholder of Pocket Health and Eva Center and has received consultant fees from Canon Medical. JS, MA, MA, LSK, and SM have no conflicts of interest to disclose.Funding StatementThis work was funded by Canada's Digital Technology Supercluster. The funder and AI developer had no role in the study design or analysis.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The research ethics board of Trillium Health Partners gave ethical approval for this workI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThe dataset from this study is held securely at THP. Coded / aggregate data can be made accessible (contact senior author).