Cited by 42Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyAcademic Publishing and Open Access

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

Open access
Dhiman, Paula, Ma, Jie, Andaur Navarro, Constanza L., Speich, Benjamin, Bullock, Garrett, Damen, Johanna A.A., Hooft, Lotty, Kirtley, Shona +4 more·2023·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: 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 individualized risk prediction. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a systematic review, searching MEDLINE and EMBASE for oncology-related studies that developed and validated a prognostic model using machine learning published between 1st January, 2019, and 5th September, 2019. We used existing spin frameworks and described areas of highly suggestive spin practices. RESULTS: We included 62 publications (including 152 developed models; 37 validated models). Reporting was inconsistent between methods and the results in 27% of studies due to additional analysis and selective reporting. Thirty-two studies (out of 36 applicable studies) reported comparisons between developed models in their discussion and predominantly used discrimination measures to support their claims (78%). Thirty-five studies (56%) used an overly strong or leading word in their title, abstract, results, discussion, or conclusion. CONCLUSION: The potential for spin needs to be considered when reading, interpreting, and using studies that developed and validated prognostic models in oncology. Researchers should carefully report their prognostic model research using words that reflect their actual results and strength of evidence.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.03.012

Cites

82 of 82 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The review found a need for more clinical validation of AI prediction models in oncology, a shortcoming that has been noted in other areas of nursing, medicine, and healthcare.

    “The review also found a need for more clinical validation of AI prediction models in oncology, a shortcoming that has been noted in other areas of nursing, medicine, and healthcare (Labarere et al., 2014;Dhiman et al., 2021;Dhiman et al., 2023).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [85]Van Calster B. McLernon D.J. van Smeden M. Wynants L. Steyerberg E.W. Bossuyt P. Calibration: the Achilles heel of predictive analytics BMC Med 17 1 2019 230 31842878 PMC6912996

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dhiman, P., Ma, J., Andaur Navarro, C. L., Speich, B., Bullock, G., Damen, J. A. A., Hooft, L., Kirtley, S., Riley, R. D., Van Calster, B., Moons, K. G. M., & Collins, G. S.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • University of Basel (CH)
  • Utrecht University (NL)
  • Keele University (GB)
Corresponding author
Dhiman, Paula
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-05
Volume
157
Pages
120-133
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4327748010
Cited by
41
References
81
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 2
FWCI
2.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lirias (KU Leuven) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Swiss National Science Foundation (P300PB_177933, P4P4PM_194496)
  • Cancer Research UK (C49297 / A27294)
  • Kom op tegen kanker (KOTK TRANS-IOTA)
  • KU Leuven Hospital (C24M/20/064)
  • NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre
  • KU Leuven
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
Keywords
spin, machine learning, prognostic model, oncology, risk prediction, selective reporting, reporting quality, model validation, discrimination measures, research integrity
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Humans, Medical Oncology, Prognosis, Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review