IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v44y2024i8p944-960.html

An Approach for Combining Clinical Judgment with Machine Learning to Inform Medical Decision Making: Analysis of Nonemergency Surgery Strategies for Acute Appendicitis in Patients with Multiple Long-Term Conditions

Author

Listed:
  • S. Moler-Zapata

    (Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK)

  • A. Hutchings

    (Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK)

  • R. Grieve

    (Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK)

  • R. Hinchliffe

    (Bristol Surgical Trials Centre, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK)

  • N. Smart

    (College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK)

  • S. R. Moonesinghe

    (Department for Targeted Intervention, Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, NHS foundation Trust, London, UK)

  • G. Bellingan

    (Department for Targeted Intervention, Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, NHS foundation Trust, London, UK)

  • R. Vohra

    (Trent Oesophago-Gastric Unit, City Campus, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK)

  • S. Moug

    (Department of Colorectal Surgery, Royal Alexandra Hospital, Paisley, UK)

  • S. O’Neill

    (Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK)

Abstract

Background Machine learning (ML) methods can identify complex patterns of treatment effect heterogeneity. However, before ML can help to personalize decision making, transparent approaches must be developed that draw on clinical judgment. We develop an approach that combines clinical judgment with ML to generate appropriate comparative effectiveness evidence for informing decision making. Methods We motivate this approach in evaluating the effectiveness of nonemergency surgery (NES) strategies, such as antibiotic therapy, for people with acute appendicitis who have multiple long-term conditions (MLTCs) compared with emergency surgery (ES). Our 4-stage approach 1) draws on clinical judgment about which patient characteristics and morbidities modify the relative effectiveness of NES; 2) selects additional covariates from a high-dimensional covariate space ( P  > 500) by applying an ML approach, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO), to large-scale administrative data ( N  = 24,312); 3) generates estimates of comparative effectiveness for relevant subgroups; and 4) presents evidence in a suitable form for decision making. Results This approach provides useful evidence for clinically relevant subgroups. We found that overall NES strategies led to increases in the mean number of days alive and out-of-hospital compared with ES, but estimates differed across subgroups, ranging from 21.2 (95% confidence interval: 1.8 to 40.5) for patients with chronic heart failure and chronic kidney disease to −10.4 (−29.8 to 9.1) for patients with cancer and hypertension. Our interactive tool for visualizing ML output allows for findings to be customized according to the specific needs of the clinical decision maker. Conclusions This principled approach of combining clinical judgment with an ML approach can improve trust, relevance, and usefulness of the evidence generated for clinical decision making. Highlights Machine learning (ML) methods have many potential applications in medical decision making, but the lack of model interpretability and usability constitutes an important barrier for the wider adoption of ML evidence in practice. We develop a 4-stage approach for integrating clinical judgment into the way an ML approach is used to estimate and report comparative effectiveness. We illustrate the approach in undertaking an evaluation of nonemergency surgery (NES) strategies for acute appendicitis in patients with multiple long-term conditions and find that NES strategies lead to better outcomes compared with emergency surgery and that the effects differ across subgroups. We develop an interactive tool for visualizing the results of this study that allows findings to be customized according to the user’s preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • S. Moler-Zapata & A. Hutchings & R. Grieve & R. Hinchliffe & N. Smart & S. R. Moonesinghe & G. Bellingan & R. Vohra & S. Moug & S. O’Neill, 2024. "An Approach for Combining Clinical Judgment with Machine Learning to Inform Medical Decision Making: Analysis of Nonemergency Surgery Strategies for Acute Appendicitis in Patients with Multiple Long-Term Conditions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 44(8), pages 944-960, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:44:y:2024:i:8:p:944-960
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X241289336
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X241289336
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X241289336?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James J. Heckman & Edward Vytlacil, 2005. "Structural Equations, Treatment Effects, and Econometric Policy Evaluation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 73(3), pages 669-738, May.
    2. Lauren E. Cipriano, 2023. "Evaluating the Impact and Potential Impact of Machine Learning on Medical Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(2), pages 147-149, February.
    3. Daniel W. Apley & Jingyu Zhu, 2020. "Visualizing the effects of predictor variables in black box supervised learning models," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 82(4), pages 1059-1086, September.
    4. Anirban Basu & James J. Heckman & Salvador Navarro‐Lozano & Sergio Urzua, 2007. "Use of instrumental variables in the presence of heterogeneity and self‐selection: an application to treatments of breast cancer patients," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(11), pages 1133-1157, November.
    5. Alexander Hapfelmeier & Kurt Ulm & Bernhard Haller, 2018. "Subgroup identification by recursive segmentation," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(15), pages 2864-2887, November.
    6. Alexandre Belloni & Victor Chernozhukov & Christian Hansen, 2014. "Inference on Treatment Effects after Selection among High-Dimensional Controlsâ€," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 81(2), pages 608-650.
    7. Imbens, Guido W & Angrist, Joshua D, 1994. "Identification and Estimation of Local Average Treatment Effects," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(2), pages 467-475, March.
    8. Stephen Martin & Karl Claxton & James Lomas & Francesco Longo, 2022. "How Responsive is Mortality to Locally Administered Healthcare Expenditure? Estimates for England for 2014/15," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 557-572, July.
    9. Anirban Basu, 2014. "ESTIMATING PERSON‐CENTERED TREATMENT (PeT) EFFECTS USING INSTRUMENTAL VARIABLES: AN APPLICATION TO EVALUATING PROSTATE CANCER TREATMENTS," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(4), pages 671-691, June.
    10. Anirban Basu & James J. Heckman & Salvador Navarro-Lozano & Sergio Urzua, 2007. "Use of instrumental variables in the presence of heterogeneity and self-selection: an application to treatments of breast cancer patients," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(11), pages 1133-1157.
    11. Silvia Moler-Zapata & Richard Grieve & David Lugo-Palacios & A. Hutchings & R. Silverwood & Luke Keele & Tommaso Kircheis & David Cromwell & Neil Smart & Robert Hinchliffe & Stephen O’Neill, 2022. "Local Instrumental Variable Methods to Address Confounding and Heterogeneity when Using Electronic Health Records: An Application to Emergency Surgery," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(8), pages 1010-1026, November.
    12. Blackwell, Matthew & Olson, Michael P., 2022. "Reducing Model Misspecification and Bias in the Estimation of Interactions," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 30(4), pages 495-514, October.
    13. Ming Yuan & Yi Lin, 2006. "Model selection and estimation in regression with grouped variables," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 68(1), pages 49-67, February.
    14. Andrew H. Briggs, 2022. "Healing the past, reimagining the present, investing in the future: What should be the role of race as a proxy covariate in health economics informed health care policy?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(10), pages 2115-2119, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mogstad, Magne & Torgovitsky, Alexander, 2024. "Instrumental variables with unobserved heterogeneity in treatment effects," Handbook of Labor Economics,, Elsevier.
    2. Olivier De Groote & Koen Declercq, 2021. "Tracking and specialization of high schools: Heterogeneous effects of school choice," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(7), pages 898-916, November.
    3. Lina Zhang & David T. Frazier & D.S. Poskitt & Xueyan Zhao, 2025. "Decomposing identification gains and evaluating instrument identification power for partially identified average treatment effects," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(7), pages 915-938, August.
    4. Hoshino, Tadao & Yanagi, Takahide, 2023. "Treatment effect models with strategic interaction in treatment decisions," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 236(2).
    5. Donghoon Lee & Anirban Basu, 2025. "Deploying Differential Distance as an Instrumental Variable: Alternative Forms, Estimators, and Specifications," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(10), pages 1832-1852, October.
    6. Domenico Depalo, 2020. "Explaining the causal effect of adherence to medication on cholesterol through the marginal patient," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(S1), pages 110-126, October.
    7. Keshav, Vaibhav, 2025. "Corporate investment amid trade policy uncertainty: Past lessons, future presidency," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    8. Guilhem Bascle, 2008. "Controlling for endogeneity with instrumental variables in strategic management research," Post-Print hal-00576795, HAL.
    9. H. Evans & A. Basu, 2011. "Exploring comparative effect heterogeneity with instrumental variables: prehospital intubation and mortality," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 11/26, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    10. Carvalho, Carlos & Masini, Ricardo & Medeiros, Marcelo C., 2018. "ArCo: An artificial counterfactual approach for high-dimensional panel time-series data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 207(2), pages 352-380.
    11. Sasaki, Yuya & Ura, Takuya, 2023. "Estimation and inference for policy relevant treatment effects," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 234(2), pages 394-450.
    12. Anirban Basu & Anupam B. Jena & Dana P. Goldman & Tomas J. Philipson & Robert Dubois, 2014. "Heterogeneity In Action: The Role Of Passive Personalization In Comparative Effectiveness Research," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(3), pages 359-373, March.
    13. Andrew M. Jones, 2007. "Identification of treatment effects in Health Economics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(11), pages 1127-1131, November.
    14. Qingliang Fan & Zijian Guo & Ziwei Mei & Cun-Hui Zhang, 2023. "Inference for Nonlinear Endogenous Treatment Effects Accounting for High-Dimensional Covariate Complexity," Papers 2310.08063, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2024.
    15. Daniel A Kamhöfer & Hendrik Schmitz & Matthias Westphal, 2019. "Heterogeneity in Marginal Non-Monetary Returns to Higher Education," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 17(1), pages 205-244.
    16. Gerten, Elisa & Beckmann, Michael & Kräkel, Matthias, 2022. "Information and Communication Technology, Hierarchy, and Job Design," IZA Discussion Papers 15491, IZA Network @ LISER.
    17. Silvia Moler‐Zapata & Richard Grieve & Anirban Basu & Stephen O’Neill, 2023. "How does a local instrumental variable method perform across settings with instruments of differing strengths? A simulation study and an evaluation of emergency surgery," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(9), pages 2113-2126, September.
    18. Cornelissen, Thomas & Dustmann, Christian & Raute, Anna & Schönberg, Uta, 2016. "From LATE to MTE: Alternative methods for the evaluation of policy interventions," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 47-60.
    19. M. Christopher Auld, 2012. "Using Observational Data to Identify the Causal Effects of Health-related Behaviour," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 4, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    20. Silvia Moler-Zapata & Richard Grieve & David Lugo-Palacios & A. Hutchings & R. Silverwood & Luke Keele & Tommaso Kircheis & David Cromwell & Neil Smart & Robert Hinchliffe & Stephen O’Neill, 2022. "Local Instrumental Variable Methods to Address Confounding and Heterogeneity when Using Electronic Health Records: An Application to Emergency Surgery," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(8), pages 1010-1026, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:44:y:2024:i:8:p:944-960. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.