Clinical prediction models using machine learning in oncology: challenges and recommendations
Open accessAbstract
Clinical prediction models are widely developed in the field of oncology, providing individualised risk estimates to aid diagnosis and prognosis. Machine learning methods are increasingly being used to develop prediction models, yet many suffer from methodological flaws limiting clinical implementation. This review outlines key considerations for developing robust, equitable prediction models in cancer care. Critical steps include systematic review of existing models, protocol development, registration, end-user engagement, sample size calculations and ensuring data representativeness across target populations. Technical challenges encompass handling missing data, addressing fairness across demographic groups and managing complex data structures, including censored observations, competing risks or clustering effects. Comprehensive internal and external evaluation requires assessment of both statistical performance (discrimination and calibration) and clinical utility. Implementation barriers include limited stakeholder engagement, insufficient clinical utility evidence, a lack of consideration of workflow integration and the absence of post-deployment monitoring plans. Despite significant potential for personalising cancer care, most prediction models remain unimplemented due to these methodological and translational challenges. Addressing these considerations from study design through post implementation monitoring is essential for developing trustworthy tools that bridge the gap between model development and clinical practice in oncology.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 82 · Cited by 27
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- [49]Riley RD Whittle R Sadatsafavi M et al A general sample size framework for developing or updating a clinical prediction model 2025 PMC13196178 42056904
- [75]Calster B Collins GS Vickers AJ et al Performance evaluation of predictive AI models to support medical decisions: Overview and guidance arXiv 2025 10288 10.48550/arXiv.2412.10288 41391983 · DOI
- Authors
- Collins, G. S., Chester-Jones, M., Gerry, S., Ma, J., Matos, J., Sehjal, J., Tsegaye, B., & Dhiman, P.
- Affiliations
- Department of Applied Health Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Venue
- BMJ Oncology
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2025-10
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- e000914
- ISSN
- 2752-7948 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC12506039
- OpenAlex
- W4414925151
- Cited by
- 27
- References
- 82
- Citations by year
- 2026: 25 · 2025: 2
- FWCI
- 2.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- BMJ Oncology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR302985)
- Cancer Research UK (CANCTA-2023/100008, PRCPJT-Nov21\100021)
- Medical Research Council (MR/Z503873/1)
- Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/Y018516/1)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
- Keywords
- clinical prediction model, machine learning, cancer prognosis, risk prediction, model implementation, model fairness, missing data, censored data, competing risks, sample size determination, external validation, clinical utility, stakeholder engagement, post-deployment monitoring, data representativeness
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