Cargando…

Evidence of questionable research practices in clinical prediction models

BACKGROUND: Clinical prediction models are widely used in health and medical research. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) is a frequently used estimate to describe the discriminatory ability of a clinical prediction model. The AUC is often interpreted relative to thresh...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: White, Nicole, Parsons, Rex, Collins, Gary, Barnett, Adrian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10478406/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37667344
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-023-03048-6
_version_ 1785101342979653632
author White, Nicole
Parsons, Rex
Collins, Gary
Barnett, Adrian
author_facet White, Nicole
Parsons, Rex
Collins, Gary
Barnett, Adrian
author_sort White, Nicole
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Clinical prediction models are widely used in health and medical research. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) is a frequently used estimate to describe the discriminatory ability of a clinical prediction model. The AUC is often interpreted relative to thresholds, with “good” or “excellent” models defined at 0.7, 0.8 or 0.9. These thresholds may create targets that result in “hacking”, where researchers are motivated to re-analyse their data until they achieve a “good” result. METHODS: We extracted AUC values from PubMed abstracts to look for evidence of hacking. We used histograms of the AUC values in bins of size 0.01 and compared the observed distribution to a smooth distribution from a spline. RESULTS: The distribution of 306,888 AUC values showed clear excesses above the thresholds of 0.7, 0.8 and 0.9 and shortfalls below the thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: The AUCs for some models are over-inflated, which risks exposing patients to sub-optimal clinical decision-making. Greater modelling transparency is needed, including published protocols, and data and code sharing. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12916-023-03048-6.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10478406
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-104784062023-09-06 Evidence of questionable research practices in clinical prediction models White, Nicole Parsons, Rex Collins, Gary Barnett, Adrian BMC Med Research Article BACKGROUND: Clinical prediction models are widely used in health and medical research. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) is a frequently used estimate to describe the discriminatory ability of a clinical prediction model. The AUC is often interpreted relative to thresholds, with “good” or “excellent” models defined at 0.7, 0.8 or 0.9. These thresholds may create targets that result in “hacking”, where researchers are motivated to re-analyse their data until they achieve a “good” result. METHODS: We extracted AUC values from PubMed abstracts to look for evidence of hacking. We used histograms of the AUC values in bins of size 0.01 and compared the observed distribution to a smooth distribution from a spline. RESULTS: The distribution of 306,888 AUC values showed clear excesses above the thresholds of 0.7, 0.8 and 0.9 and shortfalls below the thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: The AUCs for some models are over-inflated, which risks exposing patients to sub-optimal clinical decision-making. Greater modelling transparency is needed, including published protocols, and data and code sharing. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12916-023-03048-6. BioMed Central 2023-09-04 /pmc/articles/PMC10478406/ /pubmed/37667344 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-023-03048-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
White, Nicole
Parsons, Rex
Collins, Gary
Barnett, Adrian
Evidence of questionable research practices in clinical prediction models
title Evidence of questionable research practices in clinical prediction models
title_full Evidence of questionable research practices in clinical prediction models
title_fullStr Evidence of questionable research practices in clinical prediction models
title_full_unstemmed Evidence of questionable research practices in clinical prediction models
title_short Evidence of questionable research practices in clinical prediction models
title_sort evidence of questionable research practices in clinical prediction models
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10478406/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37667344
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-023-03048-6
work_keys_str_mv AT whitenicole evidenceofquestionableresearchpracticesinclinicalpredictionmodels
AT parsonsrex evidenceofquestionableresearchpracticesinclinicalpredictionmodels
AT collinsgary evidenceofquestionableresearchpracticesinclinicalpredictionmodels
AT barnettadrian evidenceofquestionableresearchpracticesinclinicalpredictionmodels