Cited by 63Artificial Intelligence in HealthcareMental Health Research TopicsEmotion and Mood Recognition

Meaningless comparisons lead to false optimism in medical machine learning

Open access
DeMasi, Orianna, Kording, Konrad, Recht, Benjamin·2017·PLoS ONE

Abstract

A new trend in medicine is the use of algorithms to analyze big datasets, e.g. using everything your phone measures about you for diagnostics or monitoring. However, these algorithms are commonly compared against weak baselines, which may contribute to excessive optimism. To assess how well an algorithm works, scientists typically ask how well its output correlates with medically assigned scores. Here we perform a meta-analysis to quantify how the literature evaluates their algorithms for monitoring mental wellbeing. We find that the bulk of the literature (∼77%) uses meaningless comparisons that ignore patient baseline state. For example, having an algorithm that uses phone data to diagnose mood disorders would be useful. However, it is possible to explain over 80% of the variance of some mood measures in the population by simply guessing that each patient has their own average mood-the patient-specific baseline. Thus, an algorithm that just predicts that our mood is like it usually is can explain the majority of variance, but is, obviously, entirely useless. Comparing to the wrong (population) baseline has a massive effect on the perceived quality of algorithms and produces baseless optimism in the field. To solve this problem we propose "user lift" that reduces these systematic errors in the evaluation of personalized medical monitoring.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0184604

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [32]Saeb S, Lonini L, Jayaraman A, Mohr DC, Kording KP. Voodoo Machine Learning for Clinical Predictions. bioRxiv. 2016;
  2. [36]Jaques N, Taylor S, Sano A, Picard R. Multi-task, Multi-Kernel Learning for Estimating Individual Wellbeing. In: Proc. NIPS Workshop on Multimodal Machine Learning, Montreal, Quebec; 2015.
  3. [37]Lu H, Frauendorfer D, Rabbi M, Mast MS, Chittaranjan GT, Campbell AT, et al. Stresssense: Detecting stress in unconstrained acoustic environments using smartphones. In: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Conference on Ubiquitous Computing. ACM; 2012. p. 351–360.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
DeMasi, O., Kording, K., & Recht, B.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
Corresponding author
DeMasi, Orianna
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2017-09-26
Volume
12
Issue
9
Pages
e0184604
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2739036537
Cited by
63
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 3
FWCI
12.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1359814)
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
  • Office of Naval Research (17-1-2191, N00014-17-1-2191, N00014-14-1-0024, N00014-17-1, N00014, N00014-17)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS063399)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Emotion and Mood Recognition
Keywords
algorithm evaluation, psychological well-being, mood disorders, smartphone data
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Algorithms, Humans, Mood Disorders

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