Machine learning-based normal tissue complication probability model for predicting albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade increase in hepatocellular carcinoma patients

Larger sample sizes are needed when developing a clinical prediction model using machine learning in oncology: methodological systematic review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Having a sufficient sample size is crucial when developing a clinical prediction model. We reviewed details of sample size in studies developing prediction models for binary outcomes using machine learning (ML) methods within oncology and compared the sample size used to develop the models with the minimum required sample size needed when developing a regression-based model (Nmin).

METHODS

We searched the Medline (via OVID) database for studies developing a prediction model using ML methods published in December 2022. We reviewed how sample size was justified. We calculated Nmin, which is the Nmin, and compared this with the sample size that was used to develop the models.

RESULTS

Only one of 36 included studies justified their sample size. We were able to calculate Nmin for 17 (47%) studies. 5/17 studies met Nmin, allowing to precisely estimate the overall risk and minimize overfitting. There was a median deficit of 302 participants with the event (n = 17; range: -21,331 to 2298) when developing the ML models. An additional three out of the 17 studies met the required sample size to precisely estimate the overall risk only.

CONCLUSION

Studies developing a prediction model using ML in oncology seldom justified their sample size and sample sizes were often smaller than Nmin. As ML models almost certainly require a larger sample size than regression models, the deficit is likely larger. We recommend that researchers consider and report their sample size and at least meet the minimum sample size required when developing a regression-based model.

Open science practices need substantial improvement in prognostic model studies in oncology using machine learning

OBJECTIVE

To describe the frequency of open science practices in a contemporary sample of studies developing prognostic models using machine learning methods in the field of oncology.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted a systematic review, searching the MEDLINE database between December 1, 2022, and December 31, 2022, for studies developing a multivariable prognostic model using machine learning methods (as defined by the authors) in oncology. Two authors independently screened records and extracted open science practices.

RESULTS

We identified 46 publications describing the development of a multivariable prognostic model. The adoption of open science principles was poor. Only one study reported availability of a study protocol, and only one study was registered. Funding statements and conflicts of interest statements were common. Thirty-five studies (76%) provided data sharing statements, with 21 (46%) indicating data were available on request to the authors and seven declaring data sharing was not applicable. Two studies (4%) shared data. Only 12 studies (26%) provided code sharing statements, including 2 (4%) that indicated the code was available on request to the authors. Only 11 studies (24%) provided sufficient information to allow their model to be used in practice. The use of reporting guidelines was rare: eight studies (18%) mentioning using a reporting guideline, with 4 (10%) using the Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis statement, 1 (2%) using Minimum Information About Clinical Artificial Intelligence Modeling and Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials-Artificial Intelligence, 1 (2%) using Strengthening The Reporting Of Observational Studies In Epidemiology, 1 (2%) using Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies, and 1 (2%) using Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonrandomized Designs.

CONCLUSION

The adoption of open science principles in oncology studies developing prognostic models using machine learning methods is poor. Guidance and an increased awareness of benefits and best practices of open science are needed for prediction research in oncology.