Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35238322›Full record

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.

Colin George Wyllie Weaver, Robert B Basmadjian, Tyler Williamson, Kerry McBrien, Tolu Sajobi, Devon Boyne, Mohamed Yusuf, Paul Everett Ronksley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Colin George Wyllie Weaver *Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7013-5187
Robert B BasmadjianDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9535-720X
Tyler WilliamsonDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5029-2345
Kerry McBrienDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6024-7828
Tolu SajobiDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5696-5552
Devon BoyneDepartment of Oncology, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6301-2429
Mohamed YusufFaculty of Science & Engineering, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9339-4613
Paul Everett RonksleyDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3958-7561

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

artificial intelligenceclinical predictionclinical prediction modelsdigital medicineeHealthmachine learningmodelingpredictionresearch methodsresearch reportingstatistics

Identifiers

PMID35238322
PMCPMC8931652

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.