ArticlePLoS computational biology2025
Nine quick tips for trustworthy machine learning in the biomedical sciences.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Twelve quick tips for applying deep learning to animal sounds.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
As machine learning (ML) becomes increasingly central to biomedical research, the need for trustworthy models is more pressing than ever. In this paper, we present nine concise and actionable tips to help researchers build ML systems that are technically sound but ethically responsible, and contextually appropriate for biomedical applications. These tips address the multifaceted nature of trustworthiness, emphasizing the importance of considering all potential consequences, recognizing the limitations of current methods, taking into account the needs of all involved stakeholders, and following open science practices. We discuss technical, ethical, and domain-specific challenges, offering guidance on how to define trustworthiness and how to mitigate sources of untrustworthiness. By embedding trustworthiness into every stage of the ML pipeline - from research design to deployment - these recommendations aim to support both novice and experienced practitioners in creating ML systems that can be relied upon in biomedical science.
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.