Common Critiques and Recommendations for Studies in Neurology Using Machine Learning Methods

Machine learning (ML) methods are becoming more prevalent in the neurology literature as alternatives to traditional statistical methods to address challenges in the analysis of modern data sets. Despite the increase in the popularity of ML methods in neurology studies, some authors do not fully address all items recommended in reporting guidelines. The authors of this Research Methods article are members of the <i>Neurology</i>® editorial board and have reviewed many studies using ML methods. In their review reports, several critiques often appear, which could be avoided if guidance were available. In this article, we detail common critiques found in ML research studies and make recommendations for how to avoid them. The first critique involves misalignment of the study goals and the analysis conducted. The second critique focuses on ML terminology being appropriately used. Critiques 3-6 are related to the study design: justifying sample sizes and the suitability of the data set for the study goals, describing the ML analysis pipeline sufficiently, quantifying the amount of missing data and providing information about missing data handling, and including uncertainty estimates for key metrics. The seventh critique focuses on fairly describing both strengths and limitations of the ML study, including the analysis methodology and results. We provide examples in neurology for each critique and guidance on how to avoid the critique. Overall, we recommend that authors use ML-specific checklists developed by research consortia for designing and reporting studies using ML. We also recommend that authors involve both a statistician and an ML expert in work that uses ML. Although our list of critiques is not exhaustive, our recommendations should help improve the quality and rigor of ML studies. ML has great potential to revolutionize neurology, but investigators need to conduct and report the results in a way that allows readers to fully evaluate the benefits and limitations of ML approaches.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Neurology
Published
2024-09-05
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0000000000209861
Citations
5
Primary Topic
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.60

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Common Critiques and Recommendations for Studies in Neurology Using Machine Learning Methods

Wesley T. Kerr, Andreas Ziegler, Jaime Lynn Speiser
5 citations
Neurology
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
0.60
article

Common Critiques and Recommendations for Studies in Neurology Using Machine Learning Methods

Wesley T. Kerr, Andreas Ziegler, Jaime Lynn Speiser
article en
5 citations

Abstract

Machine learning (ML) methods are becoming more prevalent in the neurology literature as alternatives to traditional statistical methods to address challenges in the analysis of modern data sets. Despite the increase in the popularity of ML methods in neurology studies, some authors do not fully address all items recommended in reporting guidelines. The authors of this Research Methods article are members of the <i>Neurology</i>® editorial board and have reviewed many studies using ML methods. In their review reports, several critiques often appear, which could be avoided if guidance were available. In this article, we detail common critiques found in ML research studies and make recommendations for how to avoid them. The first critique involves misalignment of the study goals and the analysis conducted. The second critique focuses on ML terminology being appropriately used. Critiques 3-6 are related to the study design: justifying sample sizes and the suitability of the data set for the study goals, describing the ML analysis pipeline sufficiently, quantifying the amount of missing data and providing information about missing data handling, and including uncertainty estimates for key metrics. The seventh critique focuses on fairly describing both strengths and limitations of the ML study, including the analysis methodology and results. We provide examples in neurology for each critique and guidance on how to avoid the critique. Overall, we recommend that authors use ML-specific checklists developed by research consortia for designing and reporting studies using ML. We also recommend that authors involve both a statistician and an ML expert in work that uses ML. Although our list of critiques is not exhaustive, our recommendations should help improve the quality and rigor of ML studies. ML has great potential to revolutionize neurology, but investigators need to conduct and report the results in a way that allows readers to fully evaluate the benefits and limitations of ML approaches.

NeurologyVol. 103(7)
Universität Hamburg (DE), University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (DE)
American Brain Foundation, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Radius Health, Eisai, Epilepsy Society, National Institutes of Health
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 29%
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
0.60
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.