Clinicians and software developers need to understand how proposed machine learning (ML) models could improve patient care. No single metric captures all the desirable properties of a model, which is why several metrics are typically reported to summarize a model’s performance. Unfortunately, these measures are not easily understandable by many clinicians. Moreover, comparison of models across studies in an objective manner is challenging, and no tool exists to compare models using the same performance metrics. This paper looks at previous ML studies done in gastroenterology, provides an explanation of what different metrics mean in the context of binary classification in the presented studies, and gives a thorough explanation of how different metrics should be interpreted. We also release an open source web-based tool that may be used to aid in calculating the most relevant metrics presented in this paper so that other researchers and clinicians may easily incorporate them into their research.

Using sensor data from devices such as smart-watches or mobile phones is very popular in both computer science and medical research. Such movement data can predict certain health states or performance outcomes.However, in order to increase reliability and replication of the research it is important to share data and results openly. In medicine, this is often difficult due to legal restrictions or to the fact that data collected from clinical trials is seen as very valuable and something that should be kept "in-house". In this paper, we therefore present PSYKOSE, a publicly shared dataset consisting of motor activity data collected from body sensors. The dataset contains data collected from patients with schizophrenia. Schizophrenia is a severe mental disorder characterized by psychotic symptoms like hallucinations and delusions, as well as symptoms of cognitive dysfunction and diminished motivation. In total, we have data from 22 patients with schizophrenia and 32 healthy control persons. For each person in the dataset, we provide sensor data collected over several days in a row. In addition to the sensor data, we also provide some demographic data and medical assessments during the observation period. The patients were assessed by medical experts from Haukeland University hospital. In addition to the data, we provide a baseline analysis and possible use-cases of the dataset.

No abstract

Precise and efficient automated identification of gastrointestinal (GI) tract diseases can help doctors treat more patients and improve the rate of disease detection and identification. Currently, automatic analysis of diseases in the GI tract is a hot topic in both computer science and medical-related journals. Nevertheless, the evaluation of such an automatic analysis is often incomplete or simply wrong. Algorithms are often only tested on small and biased datasets, and cross-dataset evaluations are rarely performed. A clear understanding of evaluation metrics and machine learning models with cross datasets is crucial to bring research in the field to a new quality level. Toward this goal, we present comprehensive evaluations of five distinct machine learning models using global features and deep neural networks that can classify 16 different key types of GI tract conditions, including pathological findings, anatomical landmarks, polyp removal conditions, and normal findings from images captured by common GI tract examination instruments. In our evaluation, we introduce performance hexagons using six performance metrics, such as recall, precision, specificity, accuracy, F1-score, and the Matthews correlation coefficient to demonstrate how to determine the real capabilities of models rather than evaluating them shallowly. Furthermore, we perform cross-dataset evaluations using different datasets for training and testing. With these cross-dataset evaluations, we demonstrate the challenge of actually building a generalizable model that could be used across different hospitals. Our experiments clearly show that more sophisticated performance metrics and evaluation methods need to be applied to get reliable models rather than depending on evaluations of the splits of the same dataset—that is, the performance metrics should always be interpreted together rather than relying on a single metric.