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