Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Machine learning-based COVID-19 prognostic models lag behind in reporting quality: findings from a TRIPOD/TRIPOD + AI systematic review
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Machine learning-based COVID-19 prognostic models lag behind in reporting quality: findings from a TRIPOD/TRIPOD + AI systematic review
Do you wish to request the book?
Machine learning-based COVID-19 prognostic models lag behind in reporting quality: findings from a TRIPOD/TRIPOD + AI systematic review
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Machine learning-based COVID-19 prognostic models lag behind in reporting quality: findings from a TRIPOD/TRIPOD + AI systematic review
2026
Overview
Background
Reporting of COVID-19 prognostic models frequently falls short of established standards. The TRIPOD checklist and its 2024 AI extension (TRIPOD + AI) provide a comprehensive framework for assessing reporting quality. We therefore evaluated and compared reporting completeness in conventional versus machine-learning models.
Methods
Studies reporting the development, and internal and external validation of prognostic prediction models for COVID-19 using either conventional or machine learning-based algorithms were included. Literature searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Epistemonikos.org, and Scopus (up to July 31, 2024). Studies using conventional statistical methods were evaluated under TRIPOD, while machine learning-based studies were assessed using TRIPOD + AI. Data extraction followed TRIPOD and TRIPOD + AI checklists, measuring adherence per article and per checklist item. The protocol was prospectively registered at the Open Science Framework (
https://osf.io/kg9yw
).
Results
A total of 53 studies describing 71 prognostic models were identified. Overall, adherence to both guidelines was low, with significantly poorer compliance among machine learning-based studies (TRIPOD + AI) compared to conventional model studies (TRIPOD) (28.4% vs. 38.1%, 95% CI of difference: 4.1–15.4). No study fully adhered to abstract reporting requirements, and appropriate titles were included in only a minority of cases (29.0%, 95% CI: 16.1–46.6 for TRIPOD; 13.6%, 95% CI: 4.8–33.3 for TRIPOD + AI). Sample size calculations were not fully reported in any study. Reporting of methods and results sections was poor across both frameworks.
Conclusion
Lower adherence among machine learning studies reflects the relatively recent publication of the TRIPOD + AI guidelines (April 2024), which postdate many of the included studies. Both conventional and machine learning-based prediction models showed insufficient reporting, with major gaps in model description and performance reporting. Greater compliance with reporting guidelines is critical to improving the clarity, reproducibility, and clinical value of prediction model research.
Publisher
BioMed Central,Springer Nature B.V,BMC
