Dataset Information

Availability and reporting quality of external validations of machine-learning prediction models with orthopedic surgical outcomes: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT: Background and purpose - External validation of machine learning (ML) prediction models is an essential step before clinical application. We assessed the proportion, performance, and transparent reporting of externally validated ML prediction models in orthopedic surgery, using the Transparent Reporting for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) guidelines.Material and methods - We performed a systematic search using synonyms for every orthopedic specialty, ML, and external validation. The proportion was determined by using 59 ML prediction models with only internal validation in orthopedic surgical outcome published up until June 18, 2020, previously identified by our group. Model performance was evaluated using discrimination, calibration, and decision-curve analysis. The TRIPOD guidelines assessed transparent reporting.Results - We included 18 studies externally validating 10 different ML prediction models of the 59 available ML models after screening 4,682 studies. All external validations identified in this review retained good discrimination. Other key performance measures were provided in only 3 studies, rendering overall performance evaluation difficult. The overall median TRIPOD completeness was 61% (IQR 43-89), with 6 items being reported in less than 4/18 of the studies.Interpretation - Most current predictive ML models are not externally validated. The 18 available external validation studies were characterized by incomplete reporting of performance measures, limiting a transparent examination of model performance. Further prospective studies are needed to validate or refute the myriad of predictive ML models in orthopedics while adhering to existing guidelines. This ensures clinicians can take full advantage of validated and clinically implementable ML decision tools.

SUBMITTER: Groot OQ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8436968 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWhile clinical prediction models (CPMs) are used increasingly commonly to guide patient care, the performance and clinical utility of these CPMs in new patient cohorts is poorly understood.MethodsWe performed 158 external validations of 104 unique CPMs across 3 domains of cardiovascular disease (primary prevention, acute coronary syndrome, and heart failure). Validations were performed in publicly available clinical trial cohorts and model performance was assessed using measures of discrimination, calibration, and net benefit. To explore potential reasons for poor model performance, CPM-clinical trial cohort pairs were stratified based on relatedness, a domain-specific set of characteristics to qualitatively grade the similarity of derivation and validation patient populations. We also examined the model-based C-statistic to assess whether changes in discrimination were because of differences in case-mix between the derivation and validation samples. The impact of model updating on model performance was also assessed.ResultsDiscrimination decreased significantly between model derivation (0.76 [interquartile range 0.73-0.78]) and validation (0.64 [interquartile range 0.60-0.67], P<0.001), but approximately half of this decrease was because of narrower case-mix in the validation samples. CPMs had better discrimination when tested in related compared with distantly related trial cohorts. Calibration slope was also significantly higher in related trial cohorts (0.77 [interquartile range, 0.59-0.90]) than distantly related cohorts (0.59 [interquartile range 0.43-0.73], P=0.001). When considering the full range of possible decision thresholds between half and twice the outcome incidence, 91% of models had a risk of harm (net benefit below default strategy) at some threshold; this risk could be reduced substantially via updating model intercept, calibration slope, or complete re-estimation.ConclusionsThere are significant decreases in model performance when applying cardiovascular disease CPMs to new patient populations, resulting in substantial risk of harm. Model updating can mitigate these risks. Care should be taken when using CPMs to guide clinical decision-making.

Project description:BackgroundThere are many clinical prediction models (CPMs) available to inform treatment decisions for patients with cardiovascular disease. However, the extent to which they have been externally tested, and how well they generally perform has not been broadly evaluated.MethodsA SCOPUS citation search was run on March 22, 2017 to identify external validations of cardiovascular CPMs in the Tufts Predictive Analytics and Comparative Effectiveness CPM Registry. We assessed the extent of external validation, performance heterogeneity across databases, and explored factors associated with model performance, including a global assessment of the clinical relatedness between the derivation and validation data.ResultsWe identified 2030 external validations of 1382 CPMs. Eight hundred seven (58%) of the CPMs in the Registry have never been externally validated. On average, there were 1.5 validations per CPM (range, 0-94). The median external validation area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.73 (25th-75th percentile [interquartile range (IQR)], 0.66-0.79), representing a median percent decrease in discrimination of -11.1% (IQR, -32.4% to +2.7%) compared with performance on derivation data. 81% (n=1333) of validations reporting area under the receiver operating characteristic curve showed discrimination below that reported in the derivation dataset. 53% (n=983) of the validations report some measure of CPM calibration. For CPMs evaluated more than once, there was typically a large range of performance. Of 1702 validations classified by relatedness, the percent change in discrimination was -3.7% (IQR, -13.2 to 3.1) for closely related validations (n=123), -9.0 (IQR, -27.6 to 3.9) for related validations (n=862), and -17.2% (IQR, -42.3 to 0) for distantly related validations (n=717; P<0.001).ConclusionsMany published cardiovascular CPMs have never been externally validated, and for those that have, apparent performance during development is often overly optimistic. A single external validation appears insufficient to broadly understand the performance heterogeneity across different settings.

Project description:BackgroundBefore considering whether to use a multivariable (diagnostic or prognostic) prediction model, it is essential that its performance be evaluated in data that were not used to develop the model (referred to as external validation). We critically appraised the methodological conduct and reporting of external validation studies of multivariable prediction models.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of articles describing some form of external validation of one or more multivariable prediction models indexed in PubMed core clinical journals published in 2010. Study data were extracted in duplicate on design, sample size, handling of missing data, reference to the original study developing the prediction models and predictive performance measures.Results11,826 articles were identified and 78 were included for full review, which described the evaluation of 120 prediction models. in participant data that were not used to develop the model. Thirty-three articles described both the development of a prediction model and an evaluation of its performance on a separate dataset, and 45 articles described only the evaluation of an existing published prediction model on another dataset. Fifty-seven percent of the prediction models were presented and evaluated as simplified scoring systems. Sixteen percent of articles failed to report the number of outcome events in the validation datasets. Fifty-four percent of studies made no explicit mention of missing data. Sixty-seven percent did not report evaluating model calibration whilst most studies evaluated model discrimination. It was often unclear whether the reported performance measures were for the full regression model or for the simplified models.ConclusionsThe vast majority of studies describing some form of external validation of a multivariable prediction model were poorly reported with key details frequently not presented. The validation studies were characterised by poor design, inappropriate handling and acknowledgement of missing data and one of the most key performance measures of prediction models i.e. calibration often omitted from the publication. It may therefore not be surprising that an overwhelming majority of developed prediction models are not used in practice, when there is a dearth of well-conducted and clearly reported (external validation) studies describing their performance on independent participant data.

Project description:AimsWe conducted a systematic review assessing the reporting quality of studies validating models based on machine learning (ML) for clinical diagnosis, with a specific focus on the reporting of information concerning the participants on which the diagnostic task was evaluated on.MethodMedline Core Clinical Journals were searched for studies published between July 2015 and July 2018. Two reviewers independently screened the retrieved articles, a third reviewer resolved any discrepancies. An extraction list was developed from the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis guideline. Two reviewers independently extracted the data from the eligible articles. Third and fourth reviewers checked, verified the extracted data as well as resolved any discrepancies between the reviewers.ResultsThe search results yielded 161 papers, of which 28 conformed to the eligibility criteria. Detail of data source was reported in 24 of the 28 papers. For all of the papers, the set of patients on which the ML-based diagnostic system was evaluated was partitioned from a larger dataset, and the method for deriving such set was always reported. Information on the diagnostic/non-diagnostic classification was reported well (23/28). The least reported items were the use of reporting guideline (0/28), distribution of disease severity (8/28 patient flow diagram (10/28) and distribution of alternative diagnosis (10/28). A large proportion of studies (23/28) had a delay between the conduct of the reference standard and ML tests, while one study did not and four studies were unclear. For 15 studies, it was unclear whether the evaluation group corresponded to the setting in which the ML test will be applied to.ConclusionAll studies in this review failed to use reporting guidelines, and a large proportion of them lacked adequate detail on participants, making it difficult to replicate, assess and interpret study findings.Prospero registration numberCRD42018099167.

Project description:BackgroundWhile 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsOur 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).ConclusionSimilar 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 registrationPROSPERO, CRD42019161764.

Dataset Information

Availability and reporting quality of external validations of machine-learning prediction models with orthopedic surgical outcomes: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets