ArticleThe Laryngoscope2025
Assessing the Reporting Quality of Machine Learning Algorithms in Head and Neck Oncology.
Article in The Laryngoscope, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Machine learning applications in predicting pharmacological treatment outcomes and responses in esophageal cancer.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to assess reporting quality of machine learning (ML) algorithms in the head and neck oncology literature using the TRIPOD-AI criteria. DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, incorporating search terms related to "artificial intelligence," "machine learning," "deep learning," "neural network," and various head and neck neoplasms. REVIEW
methodsTwo independent reviewers analyzed each published study for adherence to the 65-point TRIPOD-AI criteria. Items were classified as "Yes," "No," or "NA" for each publication. The proportion of studies satisfying each TRIPOD-AI criterion was calculated. Additionally, the evidence level for each study was evaluated independently by two reviewers using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) Levels of Evidence. Discrepancies were reconciled through discussion until consensus was reached.
resultsThe study highlights the need for improvements in ML algorithm reporting in head and neck oncology. This includes more comprehensive descriptions of datasets, standardization of model performance reporting, and increased sharing of ML models, data, and code with the research community. Adoption of TRIPOD-AI is necessary for achieving standardized ML research reporting in head and neck oncology.
conclusionCurrent reporting of ML algorithms hinders clinical application, reproducibility, and understanding of the data used for model training. To overcome these limitations and improve patient and clinician trust, ML developers should provide open access to models, code, and source data, fostering iterative progress through community critique, thus enhancing model accuracy and mitigating biases. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA Laryngoscope, 135:687-694, 2025.
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.