Holdouts set for safe predictive model updating
Authors:
Sami Haidar-Wehbe,
Samuel R Emerson,
Louis J M Aslett,
James Liley
Abstract:
Predictive risk scores for adverse outcomes are increasingly crucial in guiding health interventions. Such scores may need to be periodically updated due to change in the distributions they model. However, directly updating risk scores used to guide intervention can lead to biased risk estimates. To address this, we propose updating using a `holdout set' - a subset of the population that does not…
▽ More
Predictive risk scores for adverse outcomes are increasingly crucial in guiding health interventions. Such scores may need to be periodically updated due to change in the distributions they model. However, directly updating risk scores used to guide intervention can lead to biased risk estimates. To address this, we propose updating using a `holdout set' - a subset of the population that does not receive interventions guided by the risk score. Balancing the holdout set size is essential to ensure good performance of the updated risk score whilst minimising the number of held out samples. We prove that this approach reduces adverse outcome frequency to an asymptotically optimal level and argue that often there is no competitive alternative. We describe conditions under which an optimal holdout size (OHS) can be readily identified, and introduce parametric and semi-parametric algorithms for OHS estimation. We apply our methods to the ASPRE risk score for pre-eclampsia to recommend a plan for updating it in the presence of change in the underlying data distribution. We show that, in order to minimise the number of pre-eclampsia cases over time, this is best achieved using a holdout set of around 10,000 individuals.
△ Less
Submitted 19 December, 2024; v1 submitted 13 February, 2022;
originally announced February 2022.
Model updating after interventions paradoxically introduces bias
Authors:
James Liley,
Samuel R Emerson,
Bilal A Mateen,
Catalina A Vallejos,
Louis J M Aslett,
Sebastian J Vollmer
Abstract:
Machine learning is increasingly being used to generate prediction models for use in a number of real-world settings, from credit risk assessment to clinical decision support. Recent discussions have highlighted potential problems in the updating of a predictive score for a binary outcome when an existing predictive score forms part of the standard workflow, driving interventions. In this setting,…
▽ More
Machine learning is increasingly being used to generate prediction models for use in a number of real-world settings, from credit risk assessment to clinical decision support. Recent discussions have highlighted potential problems in the updating of a predictive score for a binary outcome when an existing predictive score forms part of the standard workflow, driving interventions. In this setting, the existing score induces an additional causative pathway which leads to miscalibration when the original score is replaced. We propose a general causal framework to describe and address this problem, and demonstrate an equivalent formulation as a partially observed Markov decision process. We use this model to demonstrate the impact of such `naive updating' when performed repeatedly. Namely, we show that successive predictive scores may converge to a point where they predict their own effect, or may eventually tend toward a stable oscillation between two values, and we argue that neither outcome is desirable. Furthermore, we demonstrate that even if model-fitting procedures improve, actual performance may worsen. We complement these findings with a discussion of several potential routes to overcome these issues.
△ Less
Submitted 22 February, 2021; v1 submitted 22 October, 2020;
originally announced October 2020.
