Cited by 269Machine Learning in HealthcareArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

Recommendations for Reporting Machine Learning Analyses in Clinical Research

Open access
Stevens, Laura M., Mortazavi, Bobak J., Deo, Rahul C., Curtis, Lesley, Kao, David P.·2020·Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes

Abstract

Use of machine learning (ML) in clinical research is growing steadily given the increasing availability of complex clinical data sets. ML presents important advantages in terms of predictive performance and identifying undiscovered subpopulations of patients with specific physiology and prognoses. Despite this popularity, many clinicians and researchers are not yet familiar with evaluating and interpreting ML analyses. Consequently, readers and peer-reviewers alike may either overestimate or underestimate the validity and credibility of an ML-based model. Conversely, ML experts without clinical experience may present details of the analysis that are too granular for a clinical readership to assess. Overwhelming evidence has shown poor reproducibility and reporting of ML models in clinical research suggesting the need for ML analyses to be presented in a clear, concise, and comprehensible manner to facilitate understanding and critical evaluation. We present a recommendation for transparent and structured reporting of ML analysis results specifically directed at clinical researchers. Furthermore, we provide a list of key reporting elements with examples that can be used as a template when preparing and submitting ML-based manuscripts for the same audience.

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 · 10.1161/circoutcomes.120.006556

Cites

34 of 34 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?

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stevens, L. M., Mortazavi, B. J., Deo, R. C., Curtis, L., & Kao, D. P.
Affiliations
  • American Heart Association (US)
  • Texas A&M University (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Duke University (US)
  • University of Colorado Anschutz (US)
Venue
Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes
Published
2020-10
Volume
13
Issue
10
Pages
e006556-e006556
ISSN
  • 1941-7705 (ISSN-L)
  • 1941-7713
OpenAlex
W3094171951
Cited by
268
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 39 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 72 · 2023: 46 · 2022: 43 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 1
FWCI
11.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Circulation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (K08HL125725, L30HL110124)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
machine learning, reporting guidelines, clinical research, reproducibility, transparency, peer review, manuscript template, model validation, cardiovascular research
MeSH terms
Data Accuracy, Machine Learning, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Periodicals as Topic, Research Design, Editorial Policies, Biomedical 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