SynthesisBMJ open2020
Reporting quality of studies using machine learning models for medical diagnosis: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 14 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
55 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 105 citations in OpenAlex.
- TRIPOD+AI statement: updated guidance for reporting clinical prediction models that use regression or machine learning methods: a Korean translation.Ewha medical journal · 2025Guideline
- AI Quality Standards in Health Care: Rapid Umbrella Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Pooled it
- Self-reporting with checklists in artificial intelligence research on medical imaging: a systematic review based on citations of CLAIM.European radiology · 2024Pooled it
- Using machine learning methods to predict all-cause somatic hospitalizations in adults: A systematic review.PloS one · 2024Pooled it
- Machine-learning versus traditional approaches for atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk prognostication in primary prevention cohorts: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials of artificial intelligence in healthcare: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2022Pooled it
- Deep Learning in mHealth for Cardiovascular Disease, Diabetes, and Cancer: Systematic Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2022Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence in orthopedic implant model classification: a systematic review.Skeletal radiology · 2022Pooled it
- Completeness of reporting of clinical prediction models developed using supervised machine learning: a systematic review.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Pooled it
- The reporting quality of natural language processing studies: systematic review of studies of radiology reports.BMC medical imaging · 2021Pooled it
- Systematic review of research design and reporting of imaging studies applying convolutional neural networks for radiological cancer diagnosis.European radiology · 2021Pooled it
- Applications of machine learning to undifferentiated chest pain in the emergency department: A systematic review.PloS one · 2021Pooled it
- Value of Machine Learning Models for Cell-Free DNA-Based Multi-Cancer Early Detection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Technology in cancer research & treatmentPooled it
- Integrating Clinical Priorities into the Technical Validation of Machine Learning Classifiers: A Generalizable Framework Demonstrated on Opioid Misuse Screening.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- ChatGPT-5 vs oral medicine experts for rank-based differential diagnosis of oral lesions: a prospective, biopsy-validated comparison.Odontology · 2026Article
- Article
- Secondary Prevention of AFAIS: Deploying Traditional Regression, Machine Learning, and Deep Learning Models to Validate and Update CHA2DS2-VASc for 90-Day Recurrence.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Development and Validation of Echocardiography Artificial Intelligence Models: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Automated sepsis prediction from unstructured electronic health records using natural language processing: a retrospective cohort study.BMJ health & care informatics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsWe 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.
methodMedline 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.
resultsThe 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.
conclusionAll 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.