使用机器学习技术进行产前出生体重预测模型研究的方法学行为和偏倚风险:系统回顾。

IF 2.7 2区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Jing Gao, Yujun Yao, Jingdong Xue, Ruiyao Chen, XingYu Yang, Jie Xu, Weiwei Cheng
{"title":"使用机器学习技术进行产前出生体重预测模型研究的方法学行为和偏倚风险:系统回顾。","authors":"Jing Gao, Yujun Yao, Jingdong Xue, Ruiyao Chen, XingYu Yang, Jie Xu, Weiwei Cheng","doi":"10.1186/s12884-025-07727-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess the methodological quality and the risk of bias, of studies that developed prediction models using Machine Learning (ML) techniques to estimate prenatal birthweight.</p><p><strong>Study design and methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review, searching the PubMed databases between 01/01/2018 and 01/08/2022, for studies that developed fetal weight prediction models using ML. We used the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement to assess the reporting quality of included publications and the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) to assess the risk of bias. We measured the overall adherence to the TRIPOD reporting checklist, provided a detailed analysis of the methodological quality of each study, and examined risk of bias in specific domains, including participant, predictor, outcome and analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fourteen studies were included and the adherence to the TRIPOD reporting items ranged from 34.62% to 80.77%, with a median adherence of 63.19%. The studies showed significant variation in their methodological rigor, with a particularly high risk of bias in the selection of participants and predictors. Notably, issues related to missing data, sample size adequacy, performance evaluation, and model validation were prominent across studies. Several studies showed limited model transparency and reproducibility.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Methodological quality of the ML-based prediction models for prenatal birthweight estimation was generally poor, with most studies at high risk of bias. There is an urgent need for improvements in the design and reporting of these studies. The adaptation of the TRIPOD and PROBAST statements specifically for ML models should be promoted to enhance transparency and reproducibility, which would facilitate the wider clinical application of ML-based prediction models and reduce research waste.</p>","PeriodicalId":9033,"journal":{"name":"BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth","volume":"25 1","pages":"696"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12225210/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Methodological conduct and risk of bias in studies on prenatal birthweight prediction models using machine learning techniques: a systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Jing Gao, Yujun Yao, Jingdong Xue, Ruiyao Chen, XingYu Yang, Jie Xu, Weiwei Cheng\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12884-025-07727-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess the methodological quality and the risk of bias, of studies that developed prediction models using Machine Learning (ML) techniques to estimate prenatal birthweight.</p><p><strong>Study design and methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review, searching the PubMed databases between 01/01/2018 and 01/08/2022, for studies that developed fetal weight prediction models using ML. We used the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement to assess the reporting quality of included publications and the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) to assess the risk of bias. We measured the overall adherence to the TRIPOD reporting checklist, provided a detailed analysis of the methodological quality of each study, and examined risk of bias in specific domains, including participant, predictor, outcome and analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fourteen studies were included and the adherence to the TRIPOD reporting items ranged from 34.62% to 80.77%, with a median adherence of 63.19%. The studies showed significant variation in their methodological rigor, with a particularly high risk of bias in the selection of participants and predictors. Notably, issues related to missing data, sample size adequacy, performance evaluation, and model validation were prominent across studies. Several studies showed limited model transparency and reproducibility.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Methodological quality of the ML-based prediction models for prenatal birthweight estimation was generally poor, with most studies at high risk of bias. There is an urgent need for improvements in the design and reporting of these studies. The adaptation of the TRIPOD and PROBAST statements specifically for ML models should be promoted to enhance transparency and reproducibility, which would facilitate the wider clinical application of ML-based prediction models and reduce research waste.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9033,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"696\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12225210/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-025-07727-5\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-025-07727-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:评估使用机器学习(ML)技术开发预测模型来估计产前出生体重的研究的方法学质量和偏倚风险。研究设计和方法:我们对2018年1月1日至2022年8月1日期间的PubMed数据库进行了系统回顾,检索了使用ML建立胎儿体重预测模型的研究。我们使用透明报告个体预后或诊断的多变量预测模型(TRIPOD)声明来评估纳入出版物的报告质量,并使用预测模型偏倚风险评估工具(PROBAST)来评估偏倚风险。我们测量了对TRIPOD报告清单的总体依从性,对每项研究的方法学质量进行了详细分析,并检查了特定领域的偏倚风险,包括参与者、预测者、结果和分析。结果:纳入14项研究,对TRIPOD报告项目的依从性为34.62% ~ 80.77%,中位依从性为63.19%。这些研究在方法的严谨性上表现出显著的差异,在选择参与者和预测者方面存在特别高的偏倚风险。值得注意的是,与缺失数据、样本量充分性、绩效评估和模型验证相关的问题在所有研究中都很突出。几项研究显示有限的模型透明度和可重复性。结论:基于ml的产前出生体重预测模型的方法学质量普遍较差,大多数研究存在高偏倚风险。迫切需要改进这些研究的设计和报告。为了提高透明度和可重复性,应促进针对ML模型的TRIPOD和PROBAST语句的调整,从而促进基于ML的预测模型的更广泛临床应用,减少研究浪费。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Methodological conduct and risk of bias in studies on prenatal birthweight prediction models using machine learning techniques: a systematic review.

Objective: To assess the methodological quality and the risk of bias, of studies that developed prediction models using Machine Learning (ML) techniques to estimate prenatal birthweight.

Study design and methods: We conducted a systematic review, searching the PubMed databases between 01/01/2018 and 01/08/2022, for studies that developed fetal weight prediction models using ML. We used the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement to assess the reporting quality of included publications and the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) to assess the risk of bias. We measured the overall adherence to the TRIPOD reporting checklist, provided a detailed analysis of the methodological quality of each study, and examined risk of bias in specific domains, including participant, predictor, outcome and analysis.

Results: Fourteen studies were included and the adherence to the TRIPOD reporting items ranged from 34.62% to 80.77%, with a median adherence of 63.19%. The studies showed significant variation in their methodological rigor, with a particularly high risk of bias in the selection of participants and predictors. Notably, issues related to missing data, sample size adequacy, performance evaluation, and model validation were prominent across studies. Several studies showed limited model transparency and reproducibility.

Conclusion: Methodological quality of the ML-based prediction models for prenatal birthweight estimation was generally poor, with most studies at high risk of bias. There is an urgent need for improvements in the design and reporting of these studies. The adaptation of the TRIPOD and PROBAST statements specifically for ML models should be promoted to enhance transparency and reproducibility, which would facilitate the wider clinical application of ML-based prediction models and reduce research waste.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
6.50%
发文量
845
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Pregnancy & Childbirth is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of pregnancy and childbirth. The journal welcomes submissions on the biomedical aspects of pregnancy, breastfeeding, labor, maternal health, maternity care, trends and sociological aspects of pregnancy and childbirth.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信