Overinterpretation of findings in machine learning prediction model studies in oncology: a systematic review

Overinterpretation of findings in machine learning prediction model studies in oncology: a systematic review

<strong>Objectives<br></strong> In biomedical research, spin is the overinterpretation of findings, and it is a growing concern. To date, the presence of spin has not been evaluated in prognostic model research in oncology, including studies developing and validating models for ind...

Bibliografske podrobnosti
Main Authors:	Dhiman, P, Ma, J, Andaur Navarro, CL, Speich, B, Bullock, G, Damen, JAA, Hooft, L, Kirtley, S, Riley, RD, Van Calster, B, Moons, KGM, Collins, GS
Format:	Journal article
Jezik:	English
Izdano:	Elsevier 2023

Podobne knjige/članki

Risk of bias of prognostic models developed using machine learning: a systematic review in oncology
od: Dhiman, P, et al.
Izdano: (2022)

Methodological conduct of prognostic prediction models developed using machine learning in oncology: a systematic review
od: Dhiman, P, et al.
Izdano: (2022)

Reporting of prognostic clinical prediction models based on machine learning methods in oncology needs to be improved
od: Dhiman, P, et al.
Izdano: (2021)

Systematic review finds "spin" practices and poor reporting standards in studies on machine learning-based prediction models
od: Andaur Navarro, CL, et al.
Izdano: (2023)

Completeness of reporting of clinical prediction models developed using supervised machine learning: a systematic review
od: Andaur Navarro, CL, et al.
Izdano: (2022)

Risk of bias in studies on prediction models developed using supervised machine learning techniques: systematic review
od: Andaur Navarro, CL, et al.
Izdano: (2021)

Overinterpretation and misreporting of prognostic factor studies in oncology: a systematic review
od: Kempf, E, et al.
Izdano: (2018)

Systematic review identifies the design and methodological conduct of studies on machine learning-based prediction models
od: Andaur Navarro, CL, et al.
Izdano: (2022)

Risk of bias of prognostic models developed using machine learning: a systematic review in oncology
od: Paula Dhiman, et al.
Izdano: (2022-07-01)

Overinterpretation and misreporting of prognostic factor studies in medical oncology
od: Kempf, E, et al.
Izdano: (2016)

Transparent reporting of multivariable prediction models for individual prognosis or diagnosis: checklist for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (TRIPOD-SRMA)
od: Snell, KIE, et al.
Izdano: (2023)

Risk of bias assessments in individual participant data meta-analyses of test accuracy and prediction models: a review shows improvements are needed
od: Levis, B, et al.
Izdano: (2023)

Protocol for a systematic review on the methodological and reporting quality of prediction model studies using machine learning techniques
od: Andaur Navarro, CL, et al.
Izdano: (2020)

Protocol for development of a reporting guideline (TRIPOD-AI) and risk of bias tool (PROBAST-AI) for diagnostic and prognostic prediction model studies based on artificial intelligence
od: Collins, GS, et al.
Izdano: (2021)

Transparent reporting of multivariable prediction models developed or validated using clustered data: TRIPOD-Cluster checklist
od: Debray, TPA, et al.
Izdano: (2023)

Transparent reporting of multivariable prediction models developed or validated using clustered data (TRIPOD-Cluster): explanation and elaboration
od: Debray, TPA, et al.
Izdano: (2023)

Overinterpretation is common in pathological diagnosis of appendix cancer during patient referral for oncologic care.
od: Mark A Valasek, et al.
Izdano: (2017-01-01)

Evaluation of clinical prediction models (part 1): from development to external validation
od: Collins, GS, et al.
Izdano: (2024)

Mosaicism in preimplantation embryos: Are we overinterpreting the results?
od: Glenn Schattman, M.D.
Izdano: (2023-09-01)

Open science practices need substantial improvement in prognostic model studies in oncology using machine learning
od: Collins, GS, et al.
Izdano: (2023)

A note on estimating the Cox-Snell R2 from a reported C statistic (AUROC) to inform sample size calculations for developing a prediction model with a binary outcome
od: Riley, RD, et al.
Izdano: (2020)

Transparent reporting of multivariable prediction models in journal and conference abstracts: TRIPOD for abstracts
od: Heus, P, et al.
Izdano: (2020)

Overinterpretation and Overtreatment of Low-Titer Antibodies Against Contactin-Associated Protein-2
od: Christian G. Bien
Izdano: (2018-04-01)

Interpretation and Overinterpretation of Ja’far Ibn Hasan Al-Barzanji’s Mawlid Al-Barzanji
od: Fadlil Munawwar Mashur
Izdano: (2017-10-01)

Multivariate unmixing approaches on Raman images of plant cell walls: new insights or overinterpretation of results?
od: Batirtze Prats-Mateu, et al.
Izdano: (2018-07-01)

Protocol for development of a reporting guideline (TRIPOD-AI) and risk of bias tool (PROBAST-AI) for diagnostic and prognostic prediction model studies based on artificial intelligence
od: Gary S Collins, et al.
Izdano: (2021-07-01)

Protocol for a systematic review on the methodological and reporting quality of prediction model studies using machine learning techniques
od: Gary S Collins, et al.
Izdano: (2020-11-01)

Completeness of reporting of clinical prediction models developed using supervised machine learning: a systematic review
od: Constanza L. Andaur Navarro, et al.
Izdano: (2022-01-01)

Methodology over metrics: current scientific standards are a disservice to patients and society
od: Van Calster, B, et al.
Izdano: (2021)

TRIPOD statement: a preliminary pre-post analysis of reporting and methods of prediction models
od: Zamanipoor Najafabadi, AH, et al.
Izdano: (2020)

Reporting guidelines used varying methodology to develop recommendations
od: Schlussel, MM, et al.
Izdano: (2023)

On the aggregation of published prognostic scores for causal inference in observational studies
od: Nguyen, T-L, et al.
Izdano: (2020)

PROBAST: A tool to assess the risk of bias and applicability of prediction model studies
od: Wolff, RF, et al.
Izdano: (2019)

Sample size requirements are not being considered in studies developing prediction models for binary outcomes: a systematic review
od: Dhiman, P, et al.
Izdano: (2023)

A systematic review showed more consideration is needed when conducting nonrandomized studies of interventions.
od: Dhiman, P, et al.
Izdano: (2019)

Poor handling of continuous predictors in clinical prediction models using logistic regression: a systematic review
od: Ma, J, et al.
Izdano: (2023)

Regarding a nomogram to predict osteoradionecrosis in oral cancer after marginal mandibulectomy and radiotherapy
od: Collins, GS, et al.
Izdano: (2019)

Artificial intelligence in lung cancer diagnostic imaging: a review of the reporting and conduct of research published 2018–2019
od: Logullo, P, et al.
Izdano: (2023)

A framework for meta-analysis of prediction model studies with binary and time-to-event outcomes
od: Debray, T, et al.
Izdano: (2018)

Minimum sample size for developing a multivariable prediction model using multinomial logistic regression
od: Pate, A, et al.
Izdano: (2023)