AI is now a cornerstone of modern dataset analysis. In many real world applications, practitioners are concerned with controlling specific kinds of errors, rather than minimizing the overall number of errors. For example, biomedical screening assays may primarily be concerned with mitigating the number of false positives rather than false negatives. Quantifying uncertainty in AI-based predictions, and in particular those controlling specific kinds of errors, remains theoretically and practically challenging. We develop a strategy called multidimensional informed generalized hypothesis testing (MIGHT) which we prove accurately quantifies uncertainty and confidence given sufficient data, and concomitantly controls for particular error types. Our key insight was that it is possible to integrate canonical cross-validation and parametric calibration procedures within a nonparametric ensemble method. Simulations demonstrate that while typical AI based-approaches cannot be trusted to obtain the truth, MIGHT can be. We apply MIGHT to answer an open question in liquid biopsies using circulating cell-free DNA (ccfDNA) in individuals with or without cancer: Which biomarkers, or combinations thereof, can we trust? Performance estimates produced by MIGHT on ccfDNA data have coefficients of variation that are often orders of magnitude lower than other state of the art algorithms such as support vector machines, random forests, and Transformers, while often also achieving higher sensitivity. We find that combinations of variable sets often decrease rather than increase sensitivity over the optimal single variable set because some variable sets add more noise than signal. This work demonstrates the importance of quantifying uncertainty and confidence—with theoretical guarantees—for the interpretation of real-world data.
Curtis et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: