Journal article icon

Journal article

Completeness of reporting of clinical prediction models developed using supervised machine learning: a systematic review

Abstract:
Background
While many studies have consistently found incomplete reporting of regression-based prediction model studies, evidence is lacking for machine learning-based prediction model studies. We aim to systematically review the adherence of Machine Learning (ML)-based prediction model studies to the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) Statement.
Methods
We included articles reporting on development or external validation of a multivariable prediction model (either diagnostic or prognostic) developed using supervised ML for individualized predictions across all medical fields. We searched PubMed from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2019. Data extraction was performed using the 22-item checklist for reporting of prediction model studies (www.TRIPOD-statement.org). We measured the overall adherence per article and per TRIPOD item.
Results
Our search identified 24,814 articles, of which 152 articles were included: 94 (61.8%) prognostic and 58 (38.2%) diagnostic prediction model studies. Overall, articles adhered to a median of 38.7% (IQR 31.0–46.4%) of TRIPOD items. No article fully adhered to complete reporting of the abstract and very few reported the flow of participants (3.9%, 95% CI 1.8 to 8.3), appropriate title (4.6%, 95% CI 2.2 to 9.2), blinding of predictors (4.6%, 95% CI 2.2 to 9.2), model specification (5.2%, 95% CI 2.4 to 10.8), and model’s predictive performance (5.9%, 95% CI 3.1 to 10.9). There was often complete reporting of source of data (98.0%, 95% CI 94.4 to 99.3) and interpretation of the results (94.7%, 95% CI 90.0 to 97.3).
Conclusion
Similar to prediction model studies developed using conventional regression-based techniques, the completeness of reporting is poor. Essential information to decide to use the model (i.e. model specification and its performance) is rarely reported. However, some items and sub-items of TRIPOD might be less suitable for ML-based prediction model studies and thus, TRIPOD requires extensions. Overall, there is an urgent need to improve the reporting quality and usability of research to avoid research waste.
Systematic review registration
PROSPERO, CRD42019161764.
Publication status:
Published
Peer review status:
Peer reviewed

Actions


Access Document


Publisher copy:
10.1186/s12874-021-01469-6

Authors


More by this author
Role:
Author
ORCID:
0000-0002-7745-2887
More by this author
Role:
Author
ORCID:
0000-0001-7401-4593
More by this author
Role:
Author
ORCID:
0000-0002-8032-6224
More by this author
Role:
Author
ORCID:
0000-0001-6798-2078
More by this author
Institution:
University of Oxford
Division:
MSD
Department:
NDORMS
Sub department:
Botnar Research Centre
Role:
Author
ORCID:
0000-0002-0989-0623


Publisher:
BioMed Central
Journal:
BMC Medical Research Methodology More from this journal
Volume:
22
Article number:
12
Place of publication:
England
Publication date:
2022-01-13
Acceptance date:
2021-11-15
DOI:
EISSN:
1471-2288
Pmid:
35026997


Language:
English
Keywords:
Pubs id:
1232647
Local pid:
pubs:1232647
Deposit date:
2022-08-14

Terms of use



Views and Downloads






If you are the owner of this record, you can report an update to it here: Report update to this record

TO TOP