ArticleJMIR research protocols2022
Reporting of Model Performance and Statistical Methods in Studies That Use Machine Learning to Develop Clinical Prediction Models: Protocol for a Systematic Review.
Article in JMIR research protocols, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Yushida: an IoT-based smart injection system for long-term management of chronic diseases.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- Meta-research on reporting guidelines for artificial intelligence: are authors and reviewers encouraged enough in radiology, nuclear medicine, and medical imaging journals?Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2024Article
- Consolidated Reporting Guidelines for Prognostic and Diagnostic Machine Learning Modeling Studies: Development and Validation.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Reducing Avoidable Emergency Visits and Hospitalizations With Patient Risk-Based Prescriptive Analytics: A Quality Improvement Project at an Oncology Care Model Practice.JCO oncology practice · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith the growing excitement of the potential benefits of using machine learning and artificial intelligence in medicine, the number of published clinical prediction models that use these approaches has increased. However, there is evidence (albeit limited) that suggests that the reporting of machine learning-specific aspects in these studies is poor. Further, there are no reviews assessing the reporting quality or broadly accepted reporting guidelines for these aspects.
objectiveThis paper presents the protocol for a systematic review that will assess the reporting quality of machine learning-specific aspects in studies that use machine learning to develop clinical prediction models.
methodsWe will include studies that use a supervised machine learning algorithm to develop a prediction model for use in clinical practice (ie, for diagnosis or prognosis of a condition or identification of candidates for health care interventions). We will search MEDLINE for studies published in 2019, pseudorandomly sort the records, and screen until we obtain 100 studies that meet our inclusion criteria. We will assess reporting quality with a novel checklist developed in parallel with this review, which includes content derived from existing reporting guidelines, textbooks, and consultations with experts. The checklist will cover 4 key areas where the reporting of machine learning studies is unique: modelling steps (order and data used for each step), model performance (eg, reporting the performance of each model compared), statistical methods (eg, describing the tuning approach), and presentation of models (eg, specifying the predictors that contributed to the final model).
resultsWe completed data analysis in August 2021 and are writing the manuscript. We expect to submit the results to a peer-reviewed journal in early 2022.
conclusionsThis review will contribute to more standardized and complete reporting in the field by identifying areas where reporting is poor and can be improved.
trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42020206167; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=206167. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR1-10.2196/30956.
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.