A statistical framework for identifying subgroup vulnerability to predictive multiplicity in clinical AI
识别临床AI预测多重性中亚组脆弱性的统计框架AI 解读 ↓
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明
本页整理公开书目信息，不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成，未完成全文核验，可能有误；具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本，未经模型改写。
DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要；缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。
本页为预印本版本；arXiv 收录、作者填写的期刊信息以及作者既有发表经历，都不单独证明本篇已接收。作者发表记录按 OpenAlex 身份与完整姓名、本站覆盖期刊 ISSN 及正式卷期核对，只展示已核实例，档案仍可能误合并。
引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录，不合计多个记录；关联记录可能包含正式发表版本，不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零，引用指标不代表论文质量。
关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配，同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列，再参考通用方法与发表日期。
分类依据与纠错
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类：摘要属于临床AI预测多重性与亚组审计的统计方法研究，未涉及所给微观、宏观或金融计量细分方向的文本依据。
反馈分类问题
正在核对关联版本…
代码、数据与补充材料
正在核对对应版本的资源…
关注这篇论文的作者
识别临床AI预测多重性中亚组脆弱性的统计框架
- 研究问题
- 摘要关注同一数据训练的AI模型对患者风险判断不一致的问题，尤其是这种分歧是否集中在临床重要亚组中，并试图为预设亚组的审计提供统计推断与多重性调整。
- 方法与思路
- 作者提出V(S)脆弱性指数，将可观测的模型分歧下界见证与临床严重度结合，并给出推断与多重性调整流程；在MIMIC-IV开发、eICU-CRD外部验证，比较随机森林与逻辑回归，覆盖158个预设亚组，另做四项模拟研究。
- 材料陈述的贡献
- 摘要称该框架可对亚组脆弱性排序，并把探索性信号与证据充分的发现区分开；实证中仅单变量心脏亚组在统计上可区分且功效充足，年龄≥80与心脏亚组点估计最大但功效不足。
- 阅读关注点
- 应核对V(S)的定义与识别条件、epsilon=0.02 Rashomon集容忍度的设定依据、下界见证的构造、多重性调整与决策规则细节，以及模拟中小样本检出率偏高和Wald区间覆盖不足的影响。
- 阅读边界
- 仅凭摘要无法判断框架的普遍有效性、因果解释与外部推广性；摘要明确乳酸的事后分析未建立因果解释，且这是arXiv预印本，未经同行评审或期刊接收验证。
原文摘要
AI models trained on the same data can disagree about patient risk, with disagreement potentially concentrated in clinically important subgroups. We propose V(S), a statistically grounded vulnerability index combining an observable lower-bound witness of model disagreement with clinical severity, and develop inference and multiplicity-adjustment procedures for auditing prespecified subgroups. We applied the framework to two large critical-care cohorts, MIMIC-IV (n = 65,078) for model development and eICU-CRD (n = 188,230 admissions, 208 hospitals) for external validation, comparing a random forest with logistic regression across 158 prespecified subgroups. The two primary models did not both satisfy the prespecified epsilon = 0.02 Rashomon-set tolerance: the logistic-regression AUC was 0.0488 below the best candidate-model AUC. The RF-LR discrimination gap is thus interpreted as disagreement between two specific models, not as a guaranteed lower bound on the full Rashomon set. Nine subgroups had discrimination gaps distinguishable from a prespecified clinical floor. The age >=80 and cardiac subgroup had the largest point estimate of V(S) (0.307), but was underpowered and did not meet the full high-priority decision rule. The univariate cardiac subgroup (V(S) = 0.193, 95% CI [0.163, 0.223]) was the only statistically distinguishable subgroup with adequate power. Post hoc analyses identified lactate as important for both models but did not establish a causal explanation for the disagreement. Four simulation studies quantified operating characteristics of the proposed procedures, including inflated small-sample detection rates and imperfect Wald-interval coverage. The framework offers a reproducible approach for ranking subgroup vulnerability to model disagreement while separating exploratory signals from adequately supported findings.