Papers › Feature Robustness in Non-stationary Health Records: Caveats to Deployable Model...

Feature Robustness in Non-stationary Health Records: Caveats to Deployable Model Performance in Common Clinical Machine Learning Tasks

2 Aug 2019arXiv:1908.00690archive 2025-07-28

Bret Nestor, Matthew B. A. McDermott, Willie Boag, Gabriela Berner, Tristan Naumann, Michael C. Hughes, Anna Goldenberg, Marzyeh Ghassemi

When training clinical prediction models from electronic health records (EHRs), a key concern should be a model's ability to sustain performance over time when deployed, even as care practices, database systems, and population demographics evolve. Due to de-identification requirements, however, current experimental practices for public EHR benchmarks (such as the MIMIC-III critical care dataset) are time agnostic, assigning care records to train or test sets without regard for the actual dates of care. As a result, current benchmarks cannot assess how well models trained on one year generalise to another. In this work, we obtain a Limited Data Use Agreement to access year of care for each record in MIMIC and show that all tested state-of-the-art models decay in prediction quality when trained on historical data and tested on future data, particularly in response to a system-wide record-keeping change in 2008 (0.29 drop in AUROC for mortality prediction, 0.10 drop in AUROC for length-of-stay prediction with a random forest classifier). We further develop a simple yet effective mitigation strategy: by aggregating raw features into expert-defined clinical concepts, we see only a 0.06 drop in AUROC for mortality prediction and a 0.03 drop in AUROC for length-of-stay prediction. We demonstrate that this aggregation strategy outperforms other automatic feature preprocessing techniques aimed at increasing robustness to data drift. We release our aggregated representations and code to encourage more deployable clinical prediction models.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

3 samples harvested; 1 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 2 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 3 of the 3 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from MLforHealth/MIMIC_Generalisation. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Tasks

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections