//
sign in
Profile
by @danabra.mov
Profile
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
Profile
by @jimpick.com
AviHandle
by @danabra.mov
AviHandle
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
AviHandle
by @katherine.computer
EventsList
by @katherine.computer
ProfileHeader
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
ProfileHeader
by @danabra.mov
ProfileMedia
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePlays
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePosts
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePosts
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
ProfileReplies
by @danabra.mov
Record
by @atsui.org
Skircle
by @danabra.mov
StreamPlacePlaylist
by @katherine.computer
+ new component
Profile
Loading...









Loading...
🧵 In Summary Prediction models are not “set and forget.” They must be constantly checked, updated, and re-evaluated—before and after clinical use. With thoughtful updating, we can keep models useful and safe over time. 📄 Read our commentary: kwnsfk27.r.eu-west-1.awstrack.me/L0/https:%2F...
🚨 What About After Implementation? Once a model is used in practice, it changes patient outcomes (e.g., high-risk patients get treated and avoid the outcome). This shifts the relationship between risk factors and outcomes. Updating without accounting for this is risky.
⚖️ Fairness Under Threat Temporal drift can impact some groups more than others. Even worse, updating models doesn’t guarantee fairness. It can reduce—or worsen—performance in minority groups. We need to monitor algorithmic fairness, not just accuracy.
💻 The Catch? Complexity Dynamic updates need: Continuous data More computing power Digital infrastructure in place Also, no method kept the original performance in later years. So, updating helps—but doesn’t fix everything.
In our commentary, we have expanded on the findings of the study, the impacts of temporal drift and the importance of addressing it.