TorchSurv is a Python package that serves as a companion tool to perform deep survival modeling within the PyTorch environment. Unlike existing libraries that impose specific parametric forms, TorchSurv enables the use of custom PyTorch-based deep survival models. With its lightweight design, minimal input requirements, full PyTorch backend, and freedom from restrictive survival model parameterizations, TorchSurv facilitates efficient deep survival model implementation and is particularly beneficial for high-dimensional and complex input data scenarios.

After a machine learning (ML)-based system is deployed in clinical practice, performance monitoring is important to ensure the safety and effectiveness of the algorithm over time. The goal of this work is to highlight the complexity of designing a monitoring strategy and the need for a systematic framework that compares the multitude of monitoring options. One of the main decisions is choosing between using real-world (observational) versus interventional data. Although the former is the most convenient source of monitoring data, it exhibits well-known biases, such as confounding, selection, and missingness. In fact, when the ML algorithm interacts with its environment, the algorithm itself may be a primary source of bias. On the other hand, a carefully designed interventional study that randomizes individuals can explicitly eliminate such biases, but the ethics, feasibility, and cost of such an approach must be carefully considered. Beyond the decision of the data source, monitoring strategies vary in the performance criteria they track, the interpretability of the test statistics, the strength of their assumptions, and their speed at detecting performance decay. As a first step towards developing a framework that compares the various monitoring options, we consider a case study of an ML-based risk prediction algorithm for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Bringing together tools from causal inference and statistical process control, we walk through the basic steps of defining candidate monitoring criteria, describing potential sources of bias and the causal model, and specifying and comparing candidate monitoring procedures. We hypothesize that these steps can be applied more generally, as causal inference can address other sources of biases as well.

In a well-calibrated risk prediction model, the average predicted probability is close to the true event rate for any given subgroup. Such models are reliable across heterogeneous populations and satisfy strong notions of algorithmic fairness. However, the task of auditing a model for strong calibration is well-known to be difficult -- particularly for machine learning (ML) algorithms -- due to the sheer number of potential subgroups. As such, common practice is to only assess calibration with respect to a few predefined subgroups. Recent developments in goodness-of-fit testing offer potential solutions but are not designed for settings with weak signal or where the poorly calibrated subgroup is small, as they either overly subdivide the data or fail to divide the data at all. We introduce a new testing procedure based on the following insight: if we can reorder observations by their expected residuals, there should be a change in the association between the predicted and observed residuals along this sequence if a poorly calibrated subgroup exists. This lets us reframe the problem of calibration testing into one of changepoint detection, for which powerful methods already exist. We begin with introducing a sample-splitting procedure where a portion of the data is used to train a suite of candidate models for predicting the residual, and the remaining data are used to perform a score-based cumulative sum (CUSUM) test. To further improve power, we then extend this adaptive CUSUM test to incorporate cross-validation, while maintaining Type I error control under minimal assumptions. Compared to existing methods, the proposed procedure consistently achieved higher power in simulation studies and more than doubled the power when auditing a mortality risk prediction model.

Performance monitoring of machine learning (ML)-based risk prediction models in healthcare is complicated by the issue of confounding medical interventions (CMI): when an algorithm predicts a patient to be at high risk for an adverse event, clinicians are more likely to administer prophylactic treatment and alter the very target that the algorithm aims to predict. A simple approach is to ignore CMI and monitor only the untreated patients, whose outcomes remain unaltered. In general, ignoring CMI may inflate Type I error because (i) untreated patients disproportionally represent those with low predicted risk and (ii) evolution in both the model and clinician trust in the model can induce complex dependencies that violate standard assumptions. Nevertheless, we show that valid inference is still possible if one monitors conditional performance and if either conditional exchangeability or time-constant selection bias hold. Specifically, we develop a new score-based cumulative sum (CUSUM) monitoring procedure with dynamic control limits. Through simulations, we demonstrate the benefits of combining model updating with monitoring and investigate how over-trust in a prediction model may delay detection of performance deterioration. Finally, we illustrate how these monitoring methods can be used to detect calibration decay of an ML-based risk calculator for postoperative nausea and vomiting during the COVID-19 pandemic.

To safely deploy deep learning-based computer vision models for computer-aided detection and diagnosis, we must ensure that they are robust and reliable. Towards that goal, algorithmic auditing has received substantial attention. To guide their audit procedures, existing methods rely on heuristic approaches or high-level objectives (e.g., non-discrimination in regards to protected attributes, such as sex, gender, or race). However, algorithms may show bias with respect to various attributes beyond the more obvious ones, and integrity issues related to these more subtle attributes can have serious consequences. To enable the generation of actionable, data-driven hypotheses which identify specific dataset attributes likely to induce model bias, we contribute a first technique for the rigorous, quantitative screening of medical image datasets. Drawing from literature in the causal inference and information theory domains, our procedure decomposes the risks associated with dataset attributes in terms of their detectability and utility (defined as the amount of information knowing the attribute gives about a task label). To demonstrate the effectiveness and sensitivity of our method, we develop a variety of datasets with synthetically inserted artifacts with different degrees of association to the target label that allow evaluation of inherited model biases via comparison of performance against true counterfactual examples. Using these datasets and results from hundreds of trained models, we show our screening method reliably identifies nearly imperceptible bias-inducing artifacts. Lastly, we apply our method to the natural attributes of a popular skin-lesion dataset and demonstrate its success. Our approach provides a means to perform more systematic algorithmic audits and guide future data collection efforts in pursuit of safer and more reliable models.