Assessing calibration and bias of a deployed machine learning malnutrition prediction model within a large healthcare system

Abstract

Malnutrition is a frequently underdiagnosed condition leading to increased morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. The Mount Sinai Health System (MSHS) deployed a machine learning model (MUST-Plus) to detect malnutrition upon hospital admission. However, in diverse patient groups, a poorly calibrated model may lead to misdiagnosis, exacerbating health care disparities. We explored the model's calibration across different variables and methods to improve calibration. Data from adult patients admitted to five MSHS hospitals from January 1, 2021 - December 31, 2022, were analyzed. We compared MUST-Plus prediction to the registered dietitian's formal assessment. Hierarchical calibration was assessed and compared between the recalibration sample (N = 49,562) of patients admitted between January 1, 2021 - December 31, 2022, and the hold-out sample (N = 17,278) of patients admitted between January 1, 2023 - September 30, 2023. Statistical differences in calibration metrics were tested using bootstrapping with replacement. Before recalibration, the overall model calibration intercept was -1.17 (95% CI: -1.20, -1.14), slope was 1.37 (95% CI: 1.34, 1.40), and Brier score was 0.26 (95% CI: 0.25, 0.26). Both weak and moderate measures of calibration were significantly different between White and Black patients and between male and female patients. Logistic recalibration significantly improved calibration of the model across race and gender in the hold-out sample. The original MUST-Plus model showed significant differences in calibration between White vs. Black patients. It also overestimated malnutrition in females compared to males. Logistic recalibration effectively reduced miscalibration across all patient subgroups. Continual monitoring and timely recalibration can improve model accuracy.

Fig. 1. Calibration Curves.

Columns from left to right are curves for a, No Recalibration b, Recalibration-in-the-Large and c, Logistic Recalibration for Black vs. White patients d, No Recalibration e, Recalibration-in-the-Large and f, Logistic Recalibration for male vs. female patients.