Cargando…
Completeness of reporting of clinical prediction models developed using supervised machine learning: a systematic review
BACKGROUND: While many studies have consistently found incomplete reporting of regression-based prediction model studies, evidence is lacking for machine learning-based prediction model studies. We aim to systematically review the adherence of Machine Learning (ML)-based prediction model studies to...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8759172/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35026997 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01469-6 |
_version_ | 1784633057719877632 |
---|---|
author | Andaur Navarro, Constanza L. Damen, Johanna A. A. Takada, Toshihiko Nijman, Steven W. J. Dhiman, Paula Ma, Jie Collins, Gary S. Bajpai, Ram Riley, Richard D. Moons, Karel G. M. Hooft, Lotty |
author_facet | Andaur Navarro, Constanza L. Damen, Johanna A. A. Takada, Toshihiko Nijman, Steven W. J. Dhiman, Paula Ma, Jie Collins, Gary S. Bajpai, Ram Riley, Richard D. Moons, Karel G. M. Hooft, Lotty |
author_sort | Andaur Navarro, Constanza L. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: While many studies have consistently found incomplete reporting of regression-based prediction model studies, evidence is lacking for machine learning-based prediction model studies. We aim to systematically review the adherence of Machine Learning (ML)-based prediction model studies to the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) Statement. METHODS: We included articles reporting on development or external validation of a multivariable prediction model (either diagnostic or prognostic) developed using supervised ML for individualized predictions across all medical fields. We searched PubMed from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2019. Data extraction was performed using the 22-item checklist for reporting of prediction model studies (www.TRIPOD-statement.org). We measured the overall adherence per article and per TRIPOD item. RESULTS: Our search identified 24,814 articles, of which 152 articles were included: 94 (61.8%) prognostic and 58 (38.2%) diagnostic prediction model studies. Overall, articles adhered to a median of 38.7% (IQR 31.0–46.4%) of TRIPOD items. No article fully adhered to complete reporting of the abstract and very few reported the flow of participants (3.9%, 95% CI 1.8 to 8.3), appropriate title (4.6%, 95% CI 2.2 to 9.2), blinding of predictors (4.6%, 95% CI 2.2 to 9.2), model specification (5.2%, 95% CI 2.4 to 10.8), and model’s predictive performance (5.9%, 95% CI 3.1 to 10.9). There was often complete reporting of source of data (98.0%, 95% CI 94.4 to 99.3) and interpretation of the results (94.7%, 95% CI 90.0 to 97.3). CONCLUSION: Similar to prediction model studies developed using conventional regression-based techniques, the completeness of reporting is poor. Essential information to decide to use the model (i.e. model specification and its performance) is rarely reported. However, some items and sub-items of TRIPOD might be less suitable for ML-based prediction model studies and thus, TRIPOD requires extensions. Overall, there is an urgent need to improve the reporting quality and usability of research to avoid research waste. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42019161764. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-021-01469-6. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8759172 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-87591722022-01-18 Completeness of reporting of clinical prediction models developed using supervised machine learning: a systematic review Andaur Navarro, Constanza L. Damen, Johanna A. A. Takada, Toshihiko Nijman, Steven W. J. Dhiman, Paula Ma, Jie Collins, Gary S. Bajpai, Ram Riley, Richard D. Moons, Karel G. M. Hooft, Lotty BMC Med Res Methodol Research BACKGROUND: While many studies have consistently found incomplete reporting of regression-based prediction model studies, evidence is lacking for machine learning-based prediction model studies. We aim to systematically review the adherence of Machine Learning (ML)-based prediction model studies to the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) Statement. METHODS: We included articles reporting on development or external validation of a multivariable prediction model (either diagnostic or prognostic) developed using supervised ML for individualized predictions across all medical fields. We searched PubMed from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2019. Data extraction was performed using the 22-item checklist for reporting of prediction model studies (www.TRIPOD-statement.org). We measured the overall adherence per article and per TRIPOD item. RESULTS: Our search identified 24,814 articles, of which 152 articles were included: 94 (61.8%) prognostic and 58 (38.2%) diagnostic prediction model studies. Overall, articles adhered to a median of 38.7% (IQR 31.0–46.4%) of TRIPOD items. No article fully adhered to complete reporting of the abstract and very few reported the flow of participants (3.9%, 95% CI 1.8 to 8.3), appropriate title (4.6%, 95% CI 2.2 to 9.2), blinding of predictors (4.6%, 95% CI 2.2 to 9.2), model specification (5.2%, 95% CI 2.4 to 10.8), and model’s predictive performance (5.9%, 95% CI 3.1 to 10.9). There was often complete reporting of source of data (98.0%, 95% CI 94.4 to 99.3) and interpretation of the results (94.7%, 95% CI 90.0 to 97.3). CONCLUSION: Similar to prediction model studies developed using conventional regression-based techniques, the completeness of reporting is poor. Essential information to decide to use the model (i.e. model specification and its performance) is rarely reported. However, some items and sub-items of TRIPOD might be less suitable for ML-based prediction model studies and thus, TRIPOD requires extensions. Overall, there is an urgent need to improve the reporting quality and usability of research to avoid research waste. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42019161764. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-021-01469-6. BioMed Central 2022-01-13 /pmc/articles/PMC8759172/ /pubmed/35026997 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01469-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis 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 Andaur Navarro, Constanza L. Damen, Johanna A. A. Takada, Toshihiko Nijman, Steven W. J. Dhiman, Paula Ma, Jie Collins, Gary S. Bajpai, Ram Riley, Richard D. Moons, Karel G. M. Hooft, Lotty Completeness of reporting of clinical prediction models developed using supervised machine learning: a systematic review |
title | Completeness of reporting of clinical prediction models developed using supervised machine learning: a systematic review |
title_full | Completeness of reporting of clinical prediction models developed using supervised machine learning: a systematic review |
title_fullStr | Completeness of reporting of clinical prediction models developed using supervised machine learning: a systematic review |
title_full_unstemmed | Completeness of reporting of clinical prediction models developed using supervised machine learning: a systematic review |
title_short | Completeness of reporting of clinical prediction models developed using supervised machine learning: a systematic review |
title_sort | completeness of reporting of clinical prediction models developed using supervised machine learning: a systematic review |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8759172/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35026997 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01469-6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT andaurnavarroconstanzal completenessofreportingofclinicalpredictionmodelsdevelopedusingsupervisedmachinelearningasystematicreview AT damenjohannaaa completenessofreportingofclinicalpredictionmodelsdevelopedusingsupervisedmachinelearningasystematicreview AT takadatoshihiko completenessofreportingofclinicalpredictionmodelsdevelopedusingsupervisedmachinelearningasystematicreview AT nijmanstevenwj completenessofreportingofclinicalpredictionmodelsdevelopedusingsupervisedmachinelearningasystematicreview AT dhimanpaula completenessofreportingofclinicalpredictionmodelsdevelopedusingsupervisedmachinelearningasystematicreview AT majie completenessofreportingofclinicalpredictionmodelsdevelopedusingsupervisedmachinelearningasystematicreview AT collinsgarys completenessofreportingofclinicalpredictionmodelsdevelopedusingsupervisedmachinelearningasystematicreview AT bajpairam completenessofreportingofclinicalpredictionmodelsdevelopedusingsupervisedmachinelearningasystematicreview AT rileyrichardd completenessofreportingofclinicalpredictionmodelsdevelopedusingsupervisedmachinelearningasystematicreview AT moonskarelgm completenessofreportingofclinicalpredictionmodelsdevelopedusingsupervisedmachinelearningasystematicreview AT hooftlotty completenessofreportingofclinicalpredictionmodelsdevelopedusingsupervisedmachinelearningasystematicreview |