Acknowledgement
This research was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education (NRF-2021R1I1A1A01059893).
References
- Han K, Song K, Choi BW. How to develop, validate, and compare clinical prediction models involving radiological parameters: study design and statistical methods. Korean J Radiol 2016;17:339-350 https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2016.17.3.339
- Collins GS, Reitsma JB, Altman DG, Moons KG. Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement. Ann Intern Med 2015;162:55-63 https://doi.org/10.7326/M14-0697
- Gillies RJ, Kinahan PE, Hricak H. Radiomics: images are more than pictures, they are data. Radiology 2016;278:563-577 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015151169
- Bzdok D, Altman N, Krzywinski M. Statistics versus machine learning. Nat Methods 2018;15:233-234 https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.4642
- Rosner B. Fundamentals of biostatistics. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning 2015
- Kononenko I. Machine learning for medical diagnosis: history, state of the art and perspective. Artif Intell Med 2001;23:89-109 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0933-3657(01)00077-X
- Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman J. The elements of statistical learning: data mining, inference, and prediction. 2nd ed. New York: Springer 2009
- Andaur Navarro CL, Damen JAA, Takada T, Nijman SWJ, Dhiman P, Ma J, et al. Risk of bias in studies on prediction models developed using supervised machine learning techniques: systematic review. BMJ 2021;375:n2281
- Yang C, Kors JA, Ioannou S, John LH, Markus AF, Rekkas A, et al. Trends in the conduct and reporting of clinical prediction model development and validation: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2022;29:983-989 https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocac002
- Sun Z, Dong W, Shi H, Ma H, Cheng L, Huang Z. Comparing machine learning models and statistical models for predicting heart failure events: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Cardiovasc Med 2022;9:812276
- Sufriyana H, Husnayain A, Chen YL, Kuo CY, Singh O, Yeh TY, et al. Comparison of multivariable logistic regression and other machine learning algorithms for prognostic prediction studies in pregnancy care: systematic review and meta-analysis. JMIR Med Inform 2020;8:e16503
- Christodoulou E, Ma J, Collins GS, Steyerberg EW, Verbakel JY, Van Calster B. A systematic review shows no performance benefit of machine learning over logistic regression for clinical prediction models. J Clin Epidemiol 2019;110:12-22 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.02.004
- Leger S, Zwanenburg A, Pilz K, Lohaus F, Linge A, Zophel K, et al. A comparative study of machine learning methods for time-to-event survival data for radiomics risk modelling. Sci Rep 2017;7:13206
- Parmar C, Grossmann P, Bussink J, Lambin P, Aerts HJWL. Machine learning methods for quantitative radiomic biomarkers. Sci Rep 2015;5:13087
- Pavlou M, Ambler G, Seaman S, De Iorio M, Omar RZ. Review and evaluation of penalised regression methods for risk prediction in low-dimensional data with few events. Stat Med 2016;35:1159-1177 https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.6782
- Park JE, Park SY, Kim HJ, Kim HS. Reproducibility and generalizability in radiomics modeling: possible strategies in radiologic and statistical perspectives. Korean J Radiol 2019;20:1124-1137 https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2018.0070
- Bae S, Choi YS, Ahn SS, Chang JH, Kang SG, Kim EH, et al. Radiomic MRI phenotyping of glioblastoma: improving survival prediction. Radiology 2018;289:797-806 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018180200
- Tan CO, Lam S, Kuppens D, Bergmans RHJ, Parameswaran BK, Forghani R, et al. Spot and diffuse signs: quantitative markers of intracranial hematoma expansion at dual-energy CT. Radiology 2018;290:179-186 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018180322
- Eun NL, Kang D, Son EJ, Park JS, Youk JH, Kim JA, et al. Texture analysis with 3.0-T MRI for association of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. Radiology 2020;294:31-41 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019182718
- Johnson KM, Johnson HE, Zhao Y, Dowe DA, Staib LH. Scoring of coronary artery disease characteristics on coronary CT angiograms by using machine learning. Radiology 2019;292:354-362 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019182061
- Peduzzi P, Concato J, Kemper E, Holford TR, Feinstein AR. A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 1996;49:1373-1379 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(96)00236-3
- Peduzzi P, Concato J, Feinstein AR, Holford TR. Importance of events per independent variable in proportional hazards regression analysis. II. Accuracy and precision of regression estimates. J Clin Epidemiol 1995;48:1503-1510 https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(95)00048-8
- Vittinghoff E, McCulloch CE. Relaxing the rule of ten events per variable in logistic and Cox regression. Am J Epidemiol 2007;165:710-718 https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwk052
- Riley RD, Ensor J, Snell KIE, Harrell FE Jr, Martin GP, Reitsma JB, et al. Calculating the sample size required for developing a clinical prediction model. BMJ 2020;368:m441
- Moons KG, Altman DG, Reitsma JB, Ioannidis JP, Macaskill P, Steyerberg EW, et al. Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2015;162:W1-W73 https://doi.org/10.7326/M14-0698
- TRIPOD. TRIPOD clustered data. Available at: https://www.tripod-statement.org/clustered/. Accessed July 8, 2022
- Collins GS, Dhiman P, Andaur Navarro CL, Ma J, Hooft L, Reitsma JB, et al. Protocol for development of a reporting guideline (TRIPOD-AI) and risk of bias tool (PROBAST-AI) for diagnostic and prognostic prediction model studies based on artificial intelligence. BMJ Open 2021;11:e048008