Cargando…

Reporting quality of studies using machine learning models for medical diagnosis: a systematic review

AIMS: We conducted a systematic review assessing the reporting quality of studies validating models based on machine learning (ML) for clinical diagnosis, with a specific focus on the reporting of information concerning the participants on which the diagnostic task was evaluated on. METHOD: Medline...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yusuf, Mohamed, Atal, Ignacio, Li, Jacques, Smith, Philip, Ravaud, Philippe, Fergie, Martin, Callaghan, Michael, Selfe, James
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7103817/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32205374
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034568
_version_ 1783512118413230080
author Yusuf, Mohamed
Atal, Ignacio
Li, Jacques
Smith, Philip
Ravaud, Philippe
Fergie, Martin
Callaghan, Michael
Selfe, James
author_facet Yusuf, Mohamed
Atal, Ignacio
Li, Jacques
Smith, Philip
Ravaud, Philippe
Fergie, Martin
Callaghan, Michael
Selfe, James
author_sort Yusuf, Mohamed
collection PubMed
description AIMS: We conducted a systematic review assessing the reporting quality of studies validating models based on machine learning (ML) for clinical diagnosis, with a specific focus on the reporting of information concerning the participants on which the diagnostic task was evaluated on. METHOD: Medline Core Clinical Journals were searched for studies published between July 2015 and July 2018. Two reviewers independently screened the retrieved articles, a third reviewer resolved any discrepancies. An extraction list was developed from the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis guideline. Two reviewers independently extracted the data from the eligible articles. Third and fourth reviewers checked, verified the extracted data as well as resolved any discrepancies between the reviewers. RESULTS: The search results yielded 161 papers, of which 28 conformed to the eligibility criteria. Detail of data source was reported in 24 of the 28 papers. For all of the papers, the set of patients on which the ML-based diagnostic system was evaluated was partitioned from a larger dataset, and the method for deriving such set was always reported. Information on the diagnostic/non-diagnostic classification was reported well (23/28). The least reported items were the use of reporting guideline (0/28), distribution of disease severity (8/28 patient flow diagram (10/28) and distribution of alternative diagnosis (10/28). A large proportion of studies (23/28) had a delay between the conduct of the reference standard and ML tests, while one study did not and four studies were unclear. For 15 studies, it was unclear whether the evaluation group corresponded to the setting in which the ML test will be applied to. CONCLUSION: All studies in this review failed to use reporting guidelines, and a large proportion of them lacked adequate detail on participants, making it difficult to replicate, assess and interpret study findings. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018099167.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7103817
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-71038172020-03-31 Reporting quality of studies using machine learning models for medical diagnosis: a systematic review Yusuf, Mohamed Atal, Ignacio Li, Jacques Smith, Philip Ravaud, Philippe Fergie, Martin Callaghan, Michael Selfe, James BMJ Open Health Informatics AIMS: We conducted a systematic review assessing the reporting quality of studies validating models based on machine learning (ML) for clinical diagnosis, with a specific focus on the reporting of information concerning the participants on which the diagnostic task was evaluated on. METHOD: Medline Core Clinical Journals were searched for studies published between July 2015 and July 2018. Two reviewers independently screened the retrieved articles, a third reviewer resolved any discrepancies. An extraction list was developed from the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis guideline. Two reviewers independently extracted the data from the eligible articles. Third and fourth reviewers checked, verified the extracted data as well as resolved any discrepancies between the reviewers. RESULTS: The search results yielded 161 papers, of which 28 conformed to the eligibility criteria. Detail of data source was reported in 24 of the 28 papers. For all of the papers, the set of patients on which the ML-based diagnostic system was evaluated was partitioned from a larger dataset, and the method for deriving such set was always reported. Information on the diagnostic/non-diagnostic classification was reported well (23/28). The least reported items were the use of reporting guideline (0/28), distribution of disease severity (8/28 patient flow diagram (10/28) and distribution of alternative diagnosis (10/28). A large proportion of studies (23/28) had a delay between the conduct of the reference standard and ML tests, while one study did not and four studies were unclear. For 15 studies, it was unclear whether the evaluation group corresponded to the setting in which the ML test will be applied to. CONCLUSION: All studies in this review failed to use reporting guidelines, and a large proportion of them lacked adequate detail on participants, making it difficult to replicate, assess and interpret study findings. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018099167. BMJ Publishing Group 2020-03-23 /pmc/articles/PMC7103817/ /pubmed/32205374 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034568 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
spellingShingle Health Informatics
Yusuf, Mohamed
Atal, Ignacio
Li, Jacques
Smith, Philip
Ravaud, Philippe
Fergie, Martin
Callaghan, Michael
Selfe, James
Reporting quality of studies using machine learning models for medical diagnosis: a systematic review
title Reporting quality of studies using machine learning models for medical diagnosis: a systematic review
title_full Reporting quality of studies using machine learning models for medical diagnosis: a systematic review
title_fullStr Reporting quality of studies using machine learning models for medical diagnosis: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Reporting quality of studies using machine learning models for medical diagnosis: a systematic review
title_short Reporting quality of studies using machine learning models for medical diagnosis: a systematic review
title_sort reporting quality of studies using machine learning models for medical diagnosis: a systematic review
topic Health Informatics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7103817/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32205374
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034568
work_keys_str_mv AT yusufmohamed reportingqualityofstudiesusingmachinelearningmodelsformedicaldiagnosisasystematicreview
AT atalignacio reportingqualityofstudiesusingmachinelearningmodelsformedicaldiagnosisasystematicreview
AT lijacques reportingqualityofstudiesusingmachinelearningmodelsformedicaldiagnosisasystematicreview
AT smithphilip reportingqualityofstudiesusingmachinelearningmodelsformedicaldiagnosisasystematicreview
AT ravaudphilippe reportingqualityofstudiesusingmachinelearningmodelsformedicaldiagnosisasystematicreview
AT fergiemartin reportingqualityofstudiesusingmachinelearningmodelsformedicaldiagnosisasystematicreview
AT callaghanmichael reportingqualityofstudiesusingmachinelearningmodelsformedicaldiagnosisasystematicreview
AT selfejames reportingqualityofstudiesusingmachinelearningmodelsformedicaldiagnosisasystematicreview