Community Implementations: [![CatalyzeX](/images/catalyzex_icon.svg) 1 code implementation](https://www.catalyzex.com/paper/arxiv:1907.01463/code)
Keywords: reproducibility, ML4H, health, systematic review, replicability, data access
TL;DR: By analyzing more than 300 papers in recent machine learning conferences, we found that Machine Learning for Health (ML4H) applications lag behind other machine learning fields in terms of reproducibility metrics.
Abstract: Machine learning algorithms designed to characterize, monitor, and intervene on human health (ML4H) are expected to perform safely and reliably when operating at scale, potentially outside strict human supervision. This requirement warrants a stricter attention to issues of reproducibility than other fields of machine learning. In this work, we conduct a systematic evaluation of over 100 recently published ML4H research papers along several dimensions related to reproducibility we identified. We find that the field of ML4H compares poorly to more established machine learning fields, particularly concerning data accessibility and code accessibility. Finally, drawing from success in other fields of science, we propose recommendations to data providers, academic publishers, and the ML4H research community in order to promote reproducible research moving forward.