An Appraisal of the Quality of Development and Reporting of Predictive Models in Neurosurgery: A Systematic Review.

IF 3.9 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Neurosurgery Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-28 DOI:10.1227/neu.0000000000003074
Syed I Khalid, Elie Massaad, Joanna Mary Roy, Kyle Thomson, Pranav Mirpuri, Ali Kiapour, John H Shin
{"title":"An Appraisal of the Quality of Development and Reporting of Predictive Models in Neurosurgery: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Syed I Khalid, Elie Massaad, Joanna Mary Roy, Kyle Thomson, Pranav Mirpuri, Ali Kiapour, John H Shin","doi":"10.1227/neu.0000000000003074","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Significant evidence has indicated that the reporting quality of novel predictive models is poor because of confounding by small data sets, inappropriate statistical analyses, and a lack of validation and reproducibility. The Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement was developed to increase the generalizability of predictive models. This study evaluated the quality of predictive models reported in neurosurgical literature through their compliance with the TRIPOD guidelines.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Articles reporting prediction models published in the top 5 neurosurgery journals by SCImago Journal Rank-2 (Neurosurgery, Journal of Neurosurgery, Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery, and Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry) between January 1st, 2018, and January 1st, 2023, were identified through a PubMed search strategy that combined terms related to machine learning and prediction modeling. These original research articles were analyzed against the TRIPOD criteria.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 110 articles were assessed with the TRIPOD checklist. The median compliance was 57.4% (IQR: 50.0%-66.7%). Models using machine learning-based models exhibited lower compliance on average compared with conventional learning-based models (57.1%, 50.0%-66.7% vs 68.1%, 50.2%-68.1%, P = .472). Among the TRIPOD criteria, the lowest compliance was observed in blinding the assessment of predictors and outcomes (n = 7, 12.7% and n = 10, 16.9%, respectively), including an informative title (n = 17, 15.6%) and reporting model performance measures such as confidence intervals (n = 27, 24.8%). Few studies provided sufficient information to allow for the external validation of results (n = 26, 25.7%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Published predictive models in neurosurgery commonly fall short of meeting the established guidelines laid out by TRIPOD for optimal development, validation, and reporting. This lack of compliance may represent the minor extent to which these models have been subjected to external validation or adopted into routine clinical practice in neurosurgery.</p>","PeriodicalId":19276,"journal":{"name":"Neurosurgery","volume":" ","pages":"269-275"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurosurgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1227/neu.0000000000003074","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objectives: Significant evidence has indicated that the reporting quality of novel predictive models is poor because of confounding by small data sets, inappropriate statistical analyses, and a lack of validation and reproducibility. The Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement was developed to increase the generalizability of predictive models. This study evaluated the quality of predictive models reported in neurosurgical literature through their compliance with the TRIPOD guidelines.

Methods: Articles reporting prediction models published in the top 5 neurosurgery journals by SCImago Journal Rank-2 (Neurosurgery, Journal of Neurosurgery, Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery, and Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry) between January 1st, 2018, and January 1st, 2023, were identified through a PubMed search strategy that combined terms related to machine learning and prediction modeling. These original research articles were analyzed against the TRIPOD criteria.

Results: A total of 110 articles were assessed with the TRIPOD checklist. The median compliance was 57.4% (IQR: 50.0%-66.7%). Models using machine learning-based models exhibited lower compliance on average compared with conventional learning-based models (57.1%, 50.0%-66.7% vs 68.1%, 50.2%-68.1%, P = .472). Among the TRIPOD criteria, the lowest compliance was observed in blinding the assessment of predictors and outcomes (n = 7, 12.7% and n = 10, 16.9%, respectively), including an informative title (n = 17, 15.6%) and reporting model performance measures such as confidence intervals (n = 27, 24.8%). Few studies provided sufficient information to allow for the external validation of results (n = 26, 25.7%).

Conclusion: Published predictive models in neurosurgery commonly fall short of meeting the established guidelines laid out by TRIPOD for optimal development, validation, and reporting. This lack of compliance may represent the minor extent to which these models have been subjected to external validation or adopted into routine clinical practice in neurosurgery.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
神经外科预测模型的开发和报告质量评估:系统回顾
背景和目的:大量证据表明,新型预测模型的报告质量较差,原因在于数据集过小、统计分析不当以及缺乏验证和可重复性。为提高预测模型的可推广性,制定了 "个人预后或诊断多变量预测模型透明报告(TRIPOD)声明"。本研究通过评估神经外科文献中报告的预测模型是否符合 TRIPOD 指南,对其质量进行了评估:方法:根据 SCImago 期刊排名-2(《神经外科学》、《神经外科学杂志》、《神经外科学杂志》、《脊柱》、《神经介入杂志》),在排名前 5 位的神经外科学杂志上发表的报告预测模型的文章:Spine》、《Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery》和《Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry》)上发表的预测模型。根据 TRIPOD 标准对这些原创研究文章进行了分析:结果:共有 110 篇文章根据 TRIPOD 检查表进行了评估。合规性中位数为 57.4%(IQR:50.0%-66.7%)。与基于传统学习的模型相比,基于机器学习的模型平均符合率较低(57.1%,50.0%-66.7% vs 68.1%,50.2%-68.1%,P = .472)。在 TRIPOD 标准中,符合率最低的是对预测因子和结果的评估进行盲法(分别为 7 项,12.7% 和 10 项,16.9%),包括信息丰富的标题(17 项,15.6%)和报告模型的性能指标,如置信区间(27 项,24.8%)。很少有研究提供了足够的信息来对结果进行外部验证(n = 26,25.7%):已发表的神经外科预测模型通常不符合 TRIPOD 为优化开发、验证和报告而制定的既定准则。这种不合规现象可能表明,这些模型接受外部验证或被神经外科常规临床实践采用的程度较低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Neurosurgery
Neurosurgery 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
6.20%
发文量
898
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: Neurosurgery, the official journal of the Congress of Neurological Surgeons, publishes research on clinical and experimental neurosurgery covering the very latest developments in science, technology, and medicine. For professionals aware of the rapid pace of developments in the field, this journal is nothing short of indispensable as the most complete window on the contemporary field of neurosurgery. Neurosurgery is the fastest-growing journal in the field, with a worldwide reputation for reliable coverage delivered with a fresh and dynamic outlook.
期刊最新文献
Maternal, Clinical, and Radiographic Outcomes: A Retrospective Analysis of Anesthesia and Delivery Modality in Chiari I Malformation. Quantitative Volumetric Computed Tomography Density Predicts Basal Ganglia Hemorrhage Expansion and Enhances Spot Sign Diagnostic Accuracy. Surgical Adverse Events for Primary Tumors of the Spine and Their Impact on Outcomes: An Observational Study From the Primary Tumors Research and Outcomes Network. Is It Really "Artificial" Intelligence? Glenohumeral Dysplasia Following Brachial Plexus Birth Injuries: A Review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1