PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Jonathan H. Lu
AU  - Alison Callahan
AU  - Birju S. Patel
AU  - Keith E. Morse
AU  - Dev Dash
AU  - Nigam H. Shah
TI  - Low adherence to existing model reporting guidelines by commonly used clinical prediction models
AID  - 10.1101/2021.07.21.21260282
DP  - 2021 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2021.07.21.21260282
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/07/23/2021.07.21.21260282.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/07/23/2021.07.21.21260282.full
AB  - Objective To assess whether the documentation available for commonly used machine learning models developed by an electronic health record (EHR) vendor provides information requested by model reporting guidelines.Materials and Methods We identified items requested for reporting from model reporting guidelines published in computer science, biomedical informatics, and clinical journals, and merged similar items into representative “atoms”. Four independent reviewers and one adjudicator assessed the degree to which model documentation for 12 models developed by Epic Systems reported the details requested in each atom. We present summary statistics of consensus, interrater agreement, and reporting rates of all atoms for the 12 models.Results We identified 220 unique atoms across 15 model reporting guidelines. After examining the documentation for the 12 most commonly used Epic models, the independent reviewers had an interrater agreement of 76%. After adjudication, the model documentations’ median completion rate of applicable atoms was 39% (range: 31%-47%). Most of the commonly requested atoms had reporting rates of 90% or above, including atoms concerning outcome definition, preprocessing, AUROC, internal validation and intended clinical use. For individual reporting guidelines, the median adherence rate for an entire guideline was 54% (range: 15%-71%). Atoms reported half the time or less included those relating to fairness (summary statistics and subgroup analyses, including for age, race/ethnicity, or sex), usefulness (net benefit, prediction time, warnings on out-of-scope use and when to stop use), and transparency (model coefficients).Atoms relating to reliability also had low reporting, including those related to missingness (missing data statistics, missingness strategy), validation (calibration plot, external validation), and monitoring (how models are updated/tuned, prediction monitoring).Conclusion There are many recommendations about what should be reported about predictive models used to guide care. Existing model documentation examined in this study provides less than half of applicable atoms, and entire reporting guidelines have low adherence rates. Half or less of the reviewed documentation reported information related to usefulness, reliability, transparency and fairness of models. There is a need for better operationalization of reporting recommendations for predictive models in healthcare.Question How often does documentation for commonly deployed clinical predictive models report the information requested by model reporting guidelines?Finding Combining the recommendations from 15 model reporting guidelines, we identified 220 unique requested items. We reviewed the documentation of 12 commonly deployed Epic models and assessed the completion rate of applicable items. The median completion rate was 39%. While the most commonly requested items were highly reported, information on usefulness, reliability, transparency and fairness was missing from at least half of documentation.Meaning There is incomplete documentation for model users to ensure that deployed models are useful, reliable, transparent and fair.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementJHL was funded by a Stanford University School of Medicine MedScholars grant. The study was supported by the Stanford Medicine Program for AI in Healthcare which is funded by a gift from Debra and Mark Leslie as well as the Department of Medicine and Stanford Healthcare.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Not applicableAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data and code used for methods, including merging of guidelines, deduplication of atoms, mapping of atoms onto stages of model development and tasks, grading of Model Briefs, adjudication, and analysis are available at eFile 1.