PreprintCited by 10Data Quality and ManagementElectronic Health Records SystemsMachine Learning in Healthcare

Development and Validation of ML-DQA -- a Machine Learning Data Quality Assurance Framework for Healthcare

Open access
Sendak, Mark, Sirdeshmukh, Gaurav, Ochoa, Timothy, Premo, Hayley, Tang, Linda, Niederhoffer, Kira, Reed, Sarah, Deshpande, Kaivalya +15 more·2022·arXiv

Abstract

The approaches by which the machine learning and clinical research communities utilize real world data (RWD), including data captured in the electronic health record (EHR), vary dramatically. While clinical researchers cautiously use RWD for clinical investigations, ML for healthcare teams consume public datasets with minimal scrutiny to develop new algorithms. This study bridges this gap by developing and validating ML-DQA, a data quality assurance framework grounded in RWD best practices. The ML-DQA framework is applied to five ML projects across two geographies, different medical conditions, and different cohorts. A total of 2,999 quality checks and 24 quality reports were generated on RWD gathered on 247,536 patients across the five projects. Five generalizable practices emerge: all projects used a similar method to group redundant data element representations; all projects used automated utilities to build diagnosis and medication data elements; all projects used a common library of rules-based transformations; all projects used a unified approach to assign data quality checks to data elements; and all projects used a similar approach to clinical adjudication. An average of 5.8 individuals, including clinicians, data scientists, and trainees, were involved in implementing ML-DQA for each project and an average of 23.4 data elements per project were either transformed or removed in response to ML-DQA. This study demonstrates the importance role of ML-DQA in healthcare projects and provides teams a framework to conduct these essential activities.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2208.02670

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.

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?

  • The data quality activities conducted for this project in 2016 - 2017 laid the foundation for a data quality assurance framework that was formally validated at a later date.

    “The data quality activities conducted for this project in 2016 - 2017 laid the foundation for a data quality assurance framework that was formally validated at a later date19.”

    From The algorithm journey map: a tangible approach to implementing AI solutions in healthcare (2024) · cites this paper as [19]

    The Conclusion (p. 16) says the study developed and validated the ML-DQA framework, supporting the later-validation portion of the claim. The Project Selection discussion (p. 5) dates the five projects’ data-quality assurance work to 2021–2022; our copy does not say that activities from the citing document’s project in 2016–2017 laid the framework’s foundation. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 14

  1. [1]1. Jarow, J. P., LaVange, L. & Woodcock, J. Multidimensional Evidence Generation and FDA Regulatory Decision Making: Defining and Using 'Real-World' Data. Jama 318, 703 (2017).
  2. [4]4. Paullada, A., Raji, I. D., Bender, E. M., Denton, E. & Hanna, A. Data and its (dis)contents: A survey of dataset development and use in machine learning research. Patterns 2, 100336 (2021).
  3. [5]5. Gebru, T. et al. Datasheets for Datasets. Arxiv (2018) doi:10.48550/arxiv.1803.09010. · DOI · Paper page
  4. [7]7. Corey, K. M. et al. Assessing Quality of Surgical Real-World Data from an Automated Electronic Health Record Pipeline. Journal of the American College of Surgeons (2020) doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2019.12.005. · DOI
  5. [8]8. Futoma, J. et al. An Improved Multi-Output Gaussian Process RNN with Real-Time Validation for Early Sepsis Detection. PMLR 243-254 (2017).
  6. [10]10. Halpern SE, Moris D, Gloria JN, et al. Textbook Outcome: Definition and Analysis of a Novel Quality Measure in Lung Transplantation. Annals of Surgery. 2021 Apr. DOI: 10.1097/sla.0000000000004916. PMID: 33843792. · DOI · Paper page
  7. [12]12. Kansal, A. et al. Impact of diagnosis code grouping method on clinical prediction model performance: a multi-site retrospective observational study. International Journal of Medical Informatics 104466 (2021) doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2021.104466. · DOI
  8. [13]13. Sendak, M. P. et al. Preliminary results of a clinical research and innovation scholarship to prepare medical students to lead innovations in health care. Healthcare 9, 100555 (2021).
  9. [14]14. Kitamura, Y. et al. 'Everyone wants to do the model work, not the data work': Data Cascades in High-Stakes AI. Proc 2021 Chi Conf Hum Factors Comput Syst 1-15 (2021) doi:10.1145/3411764.3445518 · DOI · Paper page
  10. [15]15. Jo, E. S. & Gebru, T. Lessons from Archives: Strategies for Collecting Sociocultural Data in Machine Learning. ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency 1-11 (2019) doi:10.1145/3351095.3372829. · DOI · Paper page
  11. [16]16. Holland, S., Hosny, A., Newman, S., Joseph, J. & Chmielinski, K. The Dataset Nutrition Label: A Framework to Drive Higher Data Quality Standards. arxiv preprint (2018).
  12. [18]18. Pushkarna, M. & Zaldivar, A. Data Cards: Purposeful and Transparent Documentation for Responsible AI. 35th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (2021).
  13. [19]19. Rostamzadeh, N. et al. Healthsheet: Development of a Transparency Artifact for Health Datasets. Arxiv (2022).
  14. [20]20. Hynes, N., Sculley, D. & Terry, M. The Data Linter: Lightweight, Automated Sanity Checking for ML Data Sets. NeurIPS (2017).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sendak, M., Sirdeshmukh, G., Ochoa, T., Premo, H., Tang, L., Niederhoffer, K., Reed, S., Deshpande, K., Sterrett, E., Bauer, M., Snyder, L., Shariff, A., Whellan, D., Riggio, J., Gaieski, D., Corey, K., Richards, M., Gao, M., Nichols, M., Heintze, B., Knechtle, W., Ratliff, W., & Balu, S.
Affiliations
  • Duke University (US)
  • Thomas Jefferson University Hospital (US)
  • Duke University Health System (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2022
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4290057563
Cited by
10
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Data Quality and Management
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
Keywords
data quality assurance, real-world data, electronic health records, clinical research data, quality check

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