Assessing the net benefit of machine learning models in the presence of resource constraints
Open accessAbstract
Objective: The objective of this study is to provide a method to calculate model performance measures in the presence of resource constraints, with a focus on net benefit (NB). Materials and Methods: To quantify a model’s clinical utility, the Equator Network’s TRIPOD guidelines recommend the calculation of the NB, which reflects whether the benefits conferred by intervening on true positives outweigh the harms conferred by intervening on false positives. We refer to the NB achievable in the presence of resource constraints as the realized net benefit (RNB), and provide formulae for calculating the RNB. Results: Using 4 case studies, we demonstrate the degree to which an absolute constraint (eg, only 3 available intensive care unit [ICU] beds) diminishes the RNB of a hypothetical ICU admission model. We show how the introduction of a relative constraint (eg, surgical beds that can be converted to ICU beds for very high-risk patients) allows us to recoup some of the RNB but with a higher penalty for false positives. Discussion: RNB can be calculated in silico before the model’s output is used to guide care. Accounting for the constraint changes the optimal strategy for ICU bed allocation. Conclusions: This study provides a method to account for resource constraints when planning model-based interventions, either to avoid implementations where constraints are expected to play a larger role or to design more creative solutions (eg, converted ICU beds) to overcome absolute constraints when possible.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The utility of an AI model-guided workflow is highly dependent on the benefits and costs of possible outcomes, and thus the inputs to the APLUS simulation tool are specific to the use case.
“The utility of the workflow is highly dependent on the benefits and costs of possible outcomes 10-12 , and thus the inputs to APLUS are specific to the use case.”
From Standing on FURM Ground: A Framework for Evaluating Fair, Useful, and Reliable AI Models in Health Care Systems (2024) · cites this paper as [12]
By freely sharing the assessment process, underlying methods, and open source tools used to quantify realizable benefits, the authors make it possible for other healthcare systems to conduct actionable evaluations of candidate AI systems.
“By freely sharing the assessment process, underlying methods 12 and open source tools 9 used to quantify realizable benefits, we make it possible for other healthcare systems to conduct actionable evaluations of candidate AI systems.”
From Standing on FURM Ground: A Framework for Evaluating Fair, Useful, and Reliable AI Models in Health Care Systems (2024) · cites this paper as [12]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Christodoulou, E., Ma, J., Collins, G. S., Steyerberg, E. W., Verbakel, J. Y., & Van Calster, B. (2019) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.02.004 · Cited by 2,119 · see citing works
Wong, A., Otles, E., Donnelly, J. P., Krumm, A., McCullough, J., DeTroyer-Cooley, O., Pestrue, J., Phillips, M., Konye, J., Penoza, C., et al. (2021) · JAMA Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.2626 · Cited by 995 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 20
- Obermeyer Z, Weinstein JN. Adoption of artificial intelligence and machine learning is increasing, but irrational exuberance remains. NEJM Catal 1. doi:10.1056/CAT.19.1090. · DOI
- Saria S, Butte A, Sheikh A. Better medicine through machine learning: what's real, and what's artificial? PLoS Med 2018; 15 (12): e1002721.
- Emanuel EJ, Wachter RM. Artificial intelligence in health care: will the value match the hype? JAMA 2019; 321 (23): 2281-2282.
- Topol EJ. High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence. Nat Med 2019; 25 (1): 44-56.
- Gulati G, Upshaw J, Wessler BS, et al. Generalizability of cardiovascular disease clinical prediction models: 158 independent external validations of 104 unique models. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2022; 15 (4): e008487.
- Post B, Lapedis J, Singh K, et al. Predictive model-driven hotspotting to decrease emergency department visits: a randomized controlled trial. J Gen Intern Med 2021; 36 (9): 2563-2570.
- Sicsic J, Pelletier-Fleury N, Moumjid N. Women's benefits and harms trade-offs in breast cancer screening: results from a discrete-choice experi- ment. Value Health 2018; 21 (1): 78-88.
- Gafni A. The standard gamble method: what is being measured and how it is interpreted. Health Serv Res 1994; 29 (2): 207-224.
- Vickers AJ, Elkin EB. Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluat- ing prediction models. Med Decis Making 2006; 26 (6): 565-574.
- Collins GS, Reitsma JB, Altman DG, et al. Transparent reporting of a mul- tivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRI- POD): the TRIPOD statement. BMJ 2015; 350: g7594.
- Vickers AJ, Van Calster B, Steyerberg EW. Net benefit approaches to the evaluation of prediction models, molecular markers, and diagnostic tests. BMJ 2016; 352: i6.
- Fitzgerald M, Saville BR, Lewis RJ. Decision curve analysis. JAMA 2015; 313 (4): 409-410.
- Localio AR, Goodman S. Beyond the usual prediction accuracy metrics: reporting results for clinical decision making. Ann Intern Med 2012; 157 (4): 294-295.
- Kerr KF, Brown MD, Zhu K, et al. Assessing the clinical impact of risk prediction models with decision curves: guidance for correct interpreta- tion and appropriate use. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34 (21): 2534-2540.
- Vollmer S, Mateen BA, Bohner G, et al. Machine learning and artificial intelligence research for patient benefit: 20 critical questions on transpar- ency, replicability, ethics, and effectiveness. BMJ 2020; 368: l6927.
- Jung K, Kashyap S, Avati A, et al. A framework for making predictive models useful in practice. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2021; 28 (6): 1149-58.
- Wynants L, van Smeden M, McLernon DJ et al.; Topic Group 'Evaluating diagnostic tests and prediction models' of the STRATOS initiative. Three myths about risk thresholds for prediction models. BMC Med 2019; 17 (1): 192.
- Challener DW, Prokop LJ, Abu-Saleh O. The proliferation of reports on clinical scoring systems: issues about uptake and clinical utility. JAMA 2019;321:2405-2406.
- Overby CL, Tarczy-Hornoch P. Personalized medicine: challenges and opportunities for translational bioinformatics. Per Med 2013; 10 (5): 453-462.
- Shah NH, Milstein A, Bagley PhD SC. Making machine learning models clinically useful. JAMA 2019; 322 (14): 1351-1352.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Callahan, A., McElfresh, D., Banda, J. M., Bunney, G., Char, D., Chen, J., Corbin, C. K., Dash, D., Downing, N. L., Jain, S. S., et al. (2024) · NEJM Catalyst · doi:10.1056/cat.24.0131 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
Self-citationWhy and How to Monitor Deployed AI Systems in Health Care
Keyes, T., Callahan, A., Pandya, A. S., Ambers, N., Banda, J. M., Fuentes, M., Lugtu, C., Masariya, P., Nallan, S., O’Brien, C., et al. (2026) · NEJM Catalyst · doi:10.1056/cat.25.0372 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Self-citationPrognostication and clinical opportunities with AI for coronary artery calcium: a scoping review
McDonald, V. J. F., Parsa, S., Mastrodicasa, D., Rodriguez, F., Langlotz, C., Maron, D. J., Sandhu, A. T., Dudum, R., & Jain, S. S. (2026) · BMJ Digital Health & AI · doi:10.1136/bmjdh-2026-000053
- Authors
- Singh, K., Shah, N. H., & Vickers, A. J.
- Affiliations
- University of Michigan (US)
- Stanford University (US)
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US)
- Corresponding author
- Singh, Karandeep
- Venue
- Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2023-02-22
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 668-673
- ISSN
- 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-974X
- PMC
- PMC10018264
- OpenAlex
- W4321494563
- Cited by
- 21
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3
- FWCI
- 1.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Cancer Institute (P30CA008748)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Keywords
- net benefit, resource constraints, clinical utility, machine learning model performance, ICU bed allocation, TRIPOD guidelines, intensive care
- MeSH terms
- Machine Learning, Hospitalization, Humans, Intensive Care Units
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review