Objective: Propose a framework to empirically evaluate and report validity of findings from observational studies using pre-specified objective diagnostics, increasing trust in real-world evidence (RWE).
Materials And Methods: The framework employs objective diagnostic measures to assess the appropriateness of study designs, analytic assumptions, and threats to validity in generating reliable evidence addressing causal questions. Diagnostic evaluations should be interpreted before the unblinding of study results or, alternatively, only unblind results from analyses that pass pre-specified thresholds.
Using administrative claims and electronic health records for observational studies is common but challenging due to data limitations. Researchers rely on phenotype algorithms, requiring labor-intensive chart reviews for validation. This study investigates whether case adjudication using the previously introduced Knowledge-Enhanced Electronic Profile Review (KEEPER) system with large language models (LLMs) is feasible and could serve as a viable alternative to manual chart review.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFThe primary practice of healthcare artificial intelligence (AI) starts with model development, often using state-of-the-art AI, retrospectively evaluated using metrics lifted from the AI literature like AUROC and DICE score. However, good performance on these metrics may not translate to improved clinical outcomes. Instead, we argue for a better development pipeline constructed by working backward from the end goal of positively impacting clinically relevant outcomes using AI, leading to considerations of causality in model development and validation, and subsequently a better development pipeline.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFObjective: Healthcare continues to grapple with the persistent issue of treatment disparities, sparking concerns regarding the equitable allocation of treatments in clinical practice. While various fairness metrics have emerged to assess fairness in decision-making processes, a growing focus has been on causality-based fairness concepts due to their capacity to mitigate confounding effects and reason about bias. However, the application of causal fairness notions in evaluating the fairness of clinical decision-making with electronic health record (EHR) data remains an understudied domain.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFPropensity score adjustment addresses confounding by balancing covariates in subject treatment groups through matching, stratification, inverse probability weighting, etc. Diagnostics ensure that the adjustment has been effective. A common technique is to check whether the standardized mean difference for each relevant covariate is less than a threshold like 0.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF