Systematic review finds "spin" practices and poor reporting standards in studies on machine learning-based prediction models.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the presence and frequency of spin practices and poor reporting standards in studies that developed and/or validated clinical prediction models using supervised machine learning techniques. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We systematically searched PubMed from 01/2018 to 12/2019 to identify diagnostic and prognostic prediction model studies using supervised machine learning. No restrictions were placed on data source, outcome, or clinical specialty. RESULTS: We included 152 studies: 38% reported diagnostic models and 62% prognostic models. When reported, discrimination was described without precision estimates in 53/71 abstracts (74.6% [95% CI 63.4-83.3]) and 53/81 main texts (65.4% [95% CI 54.6-74.9]). Of the 21 abstracts that recommended the model to be used in daily practice, 20 (95.2% [95% CI 77.3-99.8]) lacked any external validation of the developed models. Likewise, 74/133 (55.6% [95% CI 47.2-63.8]) studies made recommendations for clinical use in their main text without any external validation. Reporting guidelines were cited in 13/152 (8.6% [95% CI 5.1-14.1]) studies. CONCLUSION: Spin practices and poor reporting standards are also present in studies on prediction models using machine learning techniques. A tailored framework for the identification of spin will enhance the sound reporting of prediction model studies.

Systematic review identifies the design and methodological conduct of studies on machine learning-based prediction models.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We sought to summarize the study design, modelling strategies, and performance measures reported in studies on clinical prediction models developed using machine learning techniques. METHODS: We search PubMed for articles published between 01/01/2018 and 31/12/2019, describing the development or the development with external validation of a multivariable prediction model using any supervised machine learning technique. No restrictions were made based on study design, data source, or predicted patient-related health outcomes. RESULTS: We included 152 studies, 58 (38.2% [95% CI 30.8-46.1]) were diagnostic and 94 (61.8% [95% CI 53.9-69.2]) prognostic studies. Most studies reported only the development of prediction models (n = 133, 87.5% [95% CI 81.3-91.8]), focused on binary outcomes (n = 131, 86.2% [95% CI 79.8-90.8), and did not report a sample size calculation (n = 125, 82.2% [95% CI 75.4-87.5]). The most common algorithms used were support vector machine (n = 86/522, 16.5% [95% CI 13.5-19.9]) and random forest (n = 73/522, 14% [95% CI 11.3-17.2]). Values for area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve ranged from 0.45 to 1.00. Calibration metrics were often missed (n = 494/522, 94.6% [95% CI 92.4-96.3]). CONCLUSION: Our review revealed that focus is required on handling of missing values, methods for internal validation, and reporting of calibration to improve the methodological conduct of studies on machine learning-based prediction models. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42019161764.

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

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.

Guidelines and quality criteria for artificial intelligence-based prediction models in healthcare: a scoping review.

While the opportunities of ML and AI in healthcare are promising, the growth of complex data-driven prediction models requires careful quality and applicability assessment before they are applied and disseminated in daily practice. This scoping review aimed to identify actionable guidance for those closely involved in AI-based prediction model (AIPM) development, evaluation and implementation including software engineers, data scientists, and healthcare professionals and to identify potential gaps in this guidance. We performed a scoping review of the relevant literature providing guidance or quality criteria regarding the development, evaluation, and implementation of AIPMs using a comprehensive multi-stage screening strategy. PubMed, Web of Science, and the ACM Digital Library were searched, and AI experts were consulted. Topics were extracted from the identified literature and summarized across the six phases at the core of this review: (1) data preparation, (2) AIPM development, (3) AIPM validation, (4) software development, (5) AIPM impact assessment, and (6) AIPM implementation into daily healthcare practice. From 2683 unique hits, 72 relevant guidance documents were identified. Substantial guidance was found for data preparation, AIPM development and AIPM validation (phases 1-3), while later phases clearly have received less attention (software development, impact assessment and implementation) in the scientific literature. The six phases of the AIPM development, evaluation and implementation cycle provide a framework for responsible introduction of AI-based prediction models in healthcare. Additional domain and technology specific research may be necessary and more practical experience with implementing AIPMs is needed to support further guidance.

Risk of bias in studies on prediction models developed using supervised machine learning techniques: systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the methodological quality of studies on prediction models developed using machine learning techniques across all medical specialties. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: PubMed from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2019. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Articles reporting on the development, with or without external validation, of a multivariable prediction model (diagnostic or prognostic) developed using supervised machine learning for individualised predictions. No restrictions applied for study design, data source, or predicted patient related health outcomes. REVIEW METHODS: Methodological quality of the studies was determined and risk of bias evaluated using the prediction risk of bias assessment tool (PROBAST). This tool contains 21 signalling questions tailored to identify potential biases in four domains. Risk of bias was measured for each domain (participants, predictors, outcome, and analysis) and each study (overall). RESULTS: 152 studies were included: 58 (38%) included a diagnostic prediction model and 94 (62%) a prognostic prediction model. PROBAST was applied to 152 developed models and 19 external validations. Of these 171 analyses, 148 (87%, 95% confidence interval 81% to 91%) were rated at high risk of bias. The analysis domain was most frequently rated at high risk of bias. Of the 152 models, 85 (56%, 48% to 64%) were developed with an inadequate number of events per candidate predictor, 62 handled missing data inadequately (41%, 33% to 49%), and 59 assessed overfitting improperly (39%, 31% to 47%). Most models used appropriate data sources to develop (73%, 66% to 79%) and externally validate the machine learning based prediction models (74%, 51% to 88%). Information about blinding of outcome and blinding of predictors was, however, absent in 60 (40%, 32% to 47%) and 79 (52%, 44% to 60%) of the developed models, respectively. CONCLUSION: Most studies on machine learning based prediction models show poor methodological quality and are at high risk of bias. Factors contributing to risk of bias include small study size, poor handling of missing data, and failure to deal with overfitting. Efforts to improve the design, conduct, reporting, and validation of such studies are necessary to boost the application of machine learning based prediction models in clinical practice. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019161764.

Real-time imputation of missing predictor values in clinical practice.

Aims: Use of prediction models is widely recommended by clinical guidelines, but usually requires complete information on all predictors, which is not always available in daily practice. We aim to describe two methods for real-time handling of missing predictor values when using prediction models in practice. Methods and results: We compare the widely used method of mean imputation (M-imp) to a method that personalizes the imputations by taking advantage of the observed patient characteristics. These characteristics may include both prediction model variables and other characteristics (auxiliary variables). The method was implemented using imputation from a joint multivariate normal model of the patient characteristics (joint modelling imputation; JMI). Data from two different cardiovascular cohorts with cardiovascular predictors and outcome were used to evaluate the real-time imputation methods. We quantified the prediction model's overall performance [mean squared error (MSE) of linear predictor], discrimination (c-index), calibration (intercept and slope), and net benefit (decision curve analysis). When compared with mean imputation, JMI substantially improved the MSE (0.10 vs. 0.13), c-index (0.70 vs. 0.68), and calibration (calibration-in-the-large: 0.04 vs. 0.06; calibration slope: 1.01 vs. 0.92), especially when incorporating auxiliary variables. When the imputation method was based on an external cohort, calibration deteriorated, but discrimination remained similar. Conclusions: We recommend JMI with auxiliary variables for real-time imputation of missing values, and to update imputation models when implementing them in new settings or (sub)populations.

Protocol for a systematic review on the methodological and reporting quality of prediction model studies using machine learning techniques.

INTRODUCTION: Studies addressing the development and/or validation of diagnostic and prognostic prediction models are abundant in most clinical domains. Systematic reviews have shown that the methodological and reporting quality of prediction model studies is suboptimal. Due to the increasing availability of larger, routinely collected and complex medical data, and the rising application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) or machine learning (ML) techniques, the number of prediction model studies is expected to increase even further. Prediction models developed using AI or ML techniques are often labelled as a 'black box' and little is known about their methodological and reporting quality. Therefore, this comprehensive systematic review aims to evaluate the reporting quality, the methodological conduct, and the risk of bias of prediction model studies that applied ML techniques for model development and/or validation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A search will be performed in PubMed to identify studies developing and/or validating prediction models using any ML methodology and across all medical fields. Studies will be included if they were published between January 2018 and December 2019, predict patient-related outcomes, use any study design or data source, and available in English. Screening of search results and data extraction from included articles will be performed by two independent reviewers. The primary outcomes of this systematic review are: (1) the adherence of ML-based prediction model studies to the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD), and (2) the risk of bias in such studies as assessed using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST). A narrative synthesis will be conducted for all included studies. Findings will be stratified by study type, medical field and prevalent ML methods, and will inform necessary extensions or updates of TRIPOD and PROBAST to better address prediction model studies that used AI or ML techniques. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this study because only available published data will be analysed. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and scientific conferences. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42019161764.