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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |