Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Reporting and risk of bias of prediction models based on machine learning methods in preterm birth: A 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?
Reporting and risk of bias of prediction models based on machine learning methods in preterm birth: A systematic review
Do you wish to request the book?
Reporting and risk of bias of prediction models based on machine learning methods in preterm birth: A 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
Reporting and risk of bias of prediction models based on machine learning methods in preterm birth: A systematic review
2023
Overview
Introduction There was limited evidence on the quality of reporting and methodological quality of prediction models using machine learning methods in preterm birth. This systematic review aimed to assess the reporting quality and risk of bias of a machine learning‐based prediction model in preterm birth. Material and methods We conducted a systematic review, searching the PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, China Biology Medicine disk, VIP Database, and WanFang Data from inception to September 27, 2021. Studies that developed (validated) a prediction model using machine learning methods in preterm birth were included. We used the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement and Prediction model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) to evaluate the reporting quality and the risk of bias of included studies, respectively. Findings were summarized using descriptive statistics and visual plots. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (no. CRD 42022301623). Results Twenty‐nine studies met the inclusion criteria, with 24 development‐only studies and 5 development‐with‐validation studies. Overall, TRIPOD adherence per study ranged from 17% to 79%, with a median adherence of 49%. The reporting of title, , blinding of predictors, sample size justification, explanation of model, and model performance were mostly poor, with TRIPOD adherence ranging from 4% to 17%. For all included studies, 79% had a high overall risk of bias, and 21% had an unclear overall risk of bias. The analysis domain was most commonly rated as high risk of bias in included studies, mainly as a result of small effective sample size, selection of predictors based on univariable analysis, and lack of calibration evaluation. Conclusions Reporting and methodological quality of machine learning‐based prediction models in preterm birth were poor. It is urgent to improve the design, conduct, and reporting of such studies to boost the application of machine learning‐based prediction models in preterm birth in clinical practice. The reporting and methodological quality of machine learning‐based prediction models in preterm birth were poor. It is urgent to improve the design, conduct and reporting of such studies to boost the application of machine learning‐based prediction models in preterm birth in clinical practice.
Publisher
John Wiley & Sons, Inc,John Wiley and Sons Inc,Wiley
Subject
