ArticleBMJ open2020
Protocol for a systematic review on the methodological and reporting quality of prediction model studies using machine learning techniques.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 8 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Methodological conduct and risk of bias in studies on prenatal birthweight prediction models using machine learning techniques: a systematic review.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Pooled it
- Prediction and diagnosis of depression using machine learning with electronic health records data: a systematic review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Clinical prediction models in psychiatry: a systematic review of two decades of progress and challenges.Molecular psychiatry · 2022Pooled it
- Contributions of Artificial Intelligence Reported in Obstetrics and Gynecology Journals: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Pooled it
- Completeness of reporting of clinical prediction models developed using supervised machine learning: a systematic review.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Pooled it
- Prediction models for the prediction of unplanned hospital admissions in community-dwelling older adults: A systematic review.PloS one · 2022Pooled it
- Risk of bias in studies on prediction models developed using supervised machine learning techniques: systematic review.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2021Pooled it
- Reliability of the QUADAS-2 checklist in AI-based medical imaging: A comparison of human reviewers and ChatGPT-4o.Imaging science in dentistry · 2026Article
- Predictive model for severe intraventricular hemorrhage risk in preterm infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Review
- Predicting Postoperative Stress Urinary Incontinence After Prolapse Surgery via Machine Learning and Regression Models: Development and Validation Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
- Development and validation of a machine learning-based risk prediction model for stroke-associated pneumonia in older adult hemorrhagic stroke.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
- The Need to Prioritize Model-Updating Processes in Clinical Artificial Intelligence (AI) Models: Protocol for a Scoping Review.JMIR research protocols · 2023Article
- Machine Learning in Colorectal Cancer Risk Prediction from Routinely Collected Data: A Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Article
- Nonlinear Machine Learning in Warfarin Dose Prediction: Insights from Contemporary Modelling Studies.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Review of study reporting guidelines for clinical studies using artificial intelligence in healthcare.BMJ health & care informatics · 2021Review
- Enhancing trust in AI through industry self-governance.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionStudies addressing the development and/or validation of diagnostic and prognostic prediction models are abundant in most clinical domains. Systematic reviews have shown that the methodological and reporting quality of prediction model studies is suboptimal. Due to the increasing availability of larger, routinely collected and complex medical data, and the rising application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) or machine learning (ML) techniques, the number of prediction model studies is expected to increase even further. Prediction models developed using AI or ML techniques are often labelled as a 'black box' and little is known about their methodological and reporting quality. Therefore, this comprehensive systematic review aims to evaluate the reporting quality, the methodological conduct, and the risk of bias of prediction model studies that applied ML techniques for model development and/or validation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A search will be performed in PubMed to identify studies developing and/or validating prediction models using any ML methodology and across all medical fields. Studies will be included if they were published between January 2018 and December 2019, predict patient-related outcomes, use any study design or data source, and available in English. Screening of search results and data extraction from included articles will be performed by two independent reviewers. The primary outcomes of this systematic review are: (1) the adherence of ML-based prediction model studies to the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD), and (2) the risk of bias in such studies as assessed using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST). A narrative synthesis will be conducted for all included studies. Findings will be stratified by study type, medical field and prevalent ML methods, and will inform necessary extensions or updates of TRIPOD and PROBAST to better address prediction model studies that used AI or ML techniques. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this study because only available published data will be analysed. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and scientific conferences. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42019161764.
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.