Cited by 172Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationMachine Learning in HealthcareElectronic Health Records Systems

A Path for Translation of Machine Learning Products into Healthcare Delivery

Open access
Mark Sendak, Joshua D’Arcy, Sehj Kashyap, Michael C. Gao, Marshall Nichols, Kristin Corey, William Ratliff, Suresh Balu·2020·EMJ Innovations

Abstract

Despite enormous enthusiasm, machine learning models are rarely translated into clinical care and there is minimal evidence of clinical or economic impact. New conference venues and academic journals have emerged to promote the proliferating research; however, the translational path remains unclear. This review undertakes the first in-depth study to identify how machine learning models that ingest structured electronic health record data can be applied to clinical decision support tasks and translated into clinical practice. The authors complement their own work with the experience of 21 machine learning products that address problems across clinical domains and across geographic populations. Four phases of translation emerge: design and develop, evaluate and validate, diffuse and scale, and continuing monitoring and maintenance. The review highlights the varying approaches taken across each phase by teams building machine learning products and presents a discussion of challenges and opportunities. The translational path and associated findings are instructive to researchers and developers building machine learning products, policy makers regulating machine learning products, and health system leaders who are considering adopting a machine learning product.

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 · 10.33590/emjinnov/19-00172

Cites

79 of 79 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?

  • Little evidence exists on the optimal integration of sepsis models and other machine learning models into clinical workflows.

    “As a result, little evidence exists on the optimal integration of these sepsis models and other machine learning models into clinical workflows [9].”

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

1 of the 80 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. American Medical Association (AMA). Augmented Intelligence in Health Care. 2018. Available at: https://www. ama-assn.org/system/files/2019-01/ augmented-intelligence-policy-report. pdf. Last accessed: 11 December 2019.
  2. The Rothman Index. PeraHealth Secures $14 Million in Financing. 2019. Available at: https://www.perahealth. com/press-releases/2017/01/ perahealth-secures-14-million-in- financing/. Last accessed: 14 August 2019.
  3. Giannini HM et al. A machine learning algorithm to predict severe sepsis and septic shock. Crit Care Med. 2019;47(11):1485-92.
  4. Corey K et al. Model ensembling vs data pooling: Alternative ways to merge hospital information across sites. Proceedings of Machine Learning for Healthcare. 2019. Available at: https:// static1.squarespace.com/ static/59d5ac1780bd5ef9c396eda6/ t/5d473e91b0f598000 1a24186/1564950161664/Corey.pdf. Last accessed: 11 December 2019.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sendak, M., D’Arcy, J., Kashyap, S., Gao, M. C., Nichols, M., Corey, K., Ratliff, W., & Balu, S.
Affiliations
Duke University (US)
Venue
EMJ Innovations
Published
2020-01-27
ISSN
2513-8634 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3201352722
Cited by
172
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 46 · 2025: 40 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 8
FWCI
5.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • EMJ Innovation (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
University of Washington
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
Keywords
clinical decision support, electronic health records, clinical implementation, model validation, health technology adoption, health system leadership

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