Preparing for the bedside-optimizing a postpartum depression risk prediction model for clinical implementation in a health system

• Published in: Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA Vol. 31; no. 6; pp. 1258 - 1267
• Main Authors: Liu, Yifan, Joly, Rochelle, Reading Turchioe, Meghan, Benda, Natalie, Hermann, Alison, Beecy, Ashley, Pathak, Jyotishman, Zhang, Yiye
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Oxford University Press 20.05.2024
• Subjects: Decision Support Systems, Clinical; Depression, Postpartum; Electronic Health Records; Female; Humans; Machine Learning; Research and Applications; Risk Assessment - methods; health equity; postpartum depression; machine learning implementation; electronic health record
• ISSN: 1067-5027; 1527-974X; 1527-974X
• DOI: 10.1093/jamia/ocae056

We developed and externally validated a machine-learning model to predict postpartum depression (PPD) using data from electronic health records (EHRs). Effort is under way to implement the PPD prediction model within the EHR system for clinical decision support. We describe the pre-implementation evaluation process that considered model performance, fairness, and clinical appropriateness. We used EHR data from an academic medical center (AMC) and a clinical research network database from 2014 to 2020 to evaluate the predictive performance and net benefit of the PPD risk model. We used area under the curve and sensitivity as predictive performance and conducted a decision curve analysis. In assessing model fairness, we employed metrics such as disparate impact, equal opportunity, and predictive parity with the White race being the privileged value. The model was also reviewed by multidisciplinary experts for clinical appropriateness. Lastly, we debiased the model by comparing 5 different debiasing approaches of fairness through blindness and reweighing. We determined the classification threshold through a performance evaluation that prioritized sensitivity and decision curve analysis. The baseline PPD model exhibited some unfairness in the AMC data but had a fair performance in the clinical research network data. We revised the model by fairness through blindness, a debiasing approach that yielded the best overall performance and fairness, while considering clinical appropriateness suggested by the expert reviewers. The findings emphasize the need for a thorough evaluation of intervention-specific models, considering predictive performance, fairness, and appropriateness before clinical implementation.