Back

Governing Decisions of Probability Cutoffs in Clinical AI Deployment: A Case Study of Asthma Exacerbation Prediction

Zheng, L.; Agnikula Kshatriya, B. S.; Ohde, J.; Rost, L.; Malik, M.; Peterson, K.; Brereton, T.; Loufek, B.; Pereira, T.; Gai, C.; Park, M.; Hartz, M.; Fladager-Muth, J.; Wi, C.-I.; Tao, C. J.; Garovic, V.; Juhn, Y. J.; Overgaard, S. M.

2026-03-22 health informatics
10.64898/2026.03.18.26348562 medRxiv
Show abstract

Models that estimate the probability of an adverse clinical outcome require an operational cutoff to translate continuous estimated probabilities into discrete labels that can trigger clinical action. Although statistical methods identify optimal cut-offs, threshold selection ultimately reflects value judgments regarding harm tolerance, resource allocation, and workflow feasibility. We describe a governance-informed approach to selecting a deployment threshold for an asthma exacerbation (AE) prediction model integrated into clinical workflows. Using prevalence-adjusted performance metrics and real-world provider capacity modeling, we evaluated multiple candidate thresholds and quantified downstream workload and missed-event trade-offs. We demonstrate that statistically optimal thresholds may produce operationally infeasible alert volumes or unacceptable miss rates. We propose a structured threshold governance framework integrating statistical performance, clinical utility, stakeholder input, and human oversight safeguards. This case illustrates how threshold decisions should be treated as organizational governance processes rather than purely technical optimizations.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.