Literature DB >> 35175575

Black Box Prediction Methods in Sports Medicine Deserve a Red Card for Reckless Practice: A Change of Tactics is Needed to Advance Athlete Care.

Garrett S Bullock1,2,3, Tom Hughes4,5, Amelia H Arundale6,7, Patrick Ward8, Gary S Collins9,10,11, Stefan Kluzek12,9,13.   

Abstract

There is growing interest in the role of predictive analytics in sport, where such extensive data collection provides an exciting opportunity for the development and utilisation of prediction models for medical and performance purposes. Clinical prediction models have traditionally been developed using regression-based approaches, although newer machine learning methods are becoming increasingly popular. Machine learning models are considered 'black box'. In parallel with the increase in machine learning, there is also an emergence of proprietary prediction models that have been developed by researchers with the aim of becoming commercially available. Consequently, because of the profitable nature of proprietary systems, developers are often reluctant to transparently report (or make freely available) the development and validation of their prediction algorithms; the term 'black box' also applies to these systems. The lack of transparency and unavailability of algorithms to allow implementation by others of 'black box' approaches is concerning as it prevents independent evaluation of model performance, interpretability, utility, and generalisability prior to implementation within a sports medicine and performance environment. Therefore, in this Current Opinion article, we: (1) critically examine the use of black box prediction methodology and discuss its limited applicability in sport, and (2) argue that black box methods may pose a threat to delivery and development of effective athlete care and, instead, highlight why transparency and collaboration in prediction research and product development are essential to improve the integration of prediction models into sports medicine and performance.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35175575     DOI: 10.1007/s40279-022-01655-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sports Med        ISSN: 0112-1642            Impact factor:   11.928


  30 in total

1.  Prediction: The Modern-Day Sport-Science and Sports-Medicine "Quest for the Holy Grail".

Authors:  Alan McCall; Maurizio Fanchini; Aaron J Coutts
Journal:  Int J Sports Physiol Perform       Date:  2017-05-10       Impact factor: 4.010

2.  Big Data and Predictive Analytics: Recalibrating Expectations.

Authors:  Nilay D Shah; Ewout W Steyerberg; David M Kent
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2018-07-03       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Stop Explaining Black Box Machine Learning Models for High Stakes Decisions and Use Interpretable Models Instead.

Authors:  Cynthia Rudin
Journal:  Nat Mach Intell       Date:  2019-05-13

Review 4.  High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence.

Authors:  Eric J Topol
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  2019-01-07       Impact factor: 53.440

5.  Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): explanation and elaboration.

Authors:  Karel G M Moons; Douglas G Altman; Johannes B Reitsma; John P A Ioannidis; Petra Macaskill; Ewout W Steyerberg; Andrew J Vickers; David F Ransohoff; Gary S Collins
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2015-01-06       Impact factor: 25.391

6.  Reporting of prognostic clinical prediction models based on machine learning methods in oncology needs to be improved.

Authors:  Paula Dhiman; Jie Ma; Constanza Andaur Navarro; Benjamin Speich; Garrett Bullock; Johanna Aa Damen; Shona Kirtley; Lotty Hooft; Richard D Riley; Ben Van Calster; Karel G M Moons; Gary S Collins
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2021-06-29       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 7.  Prognosis Research Strategy (PROGRESS) 2: prognostic factor research.

Authors:  Richard D Riley; Jill A Hayden; Ewout W Steyerberg; Karel G M Moons; Keith Abrams; Panayiotis A Kyzas; Núria Malats; Andrew Briggs; Sara Schroter; Douglas G Altman; Harry Hemingway
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2013-02-05       Impact factor: 11.069

Review 8.  Prognosis Research Strategy (PROGRESS) 3: prognostic model research.

Authors:  Ewout W Steyerberg; Karel G M Moons; Danielle A van der Windt; Jill A Hayden; Pablo Perel; Sara Schroter; Richard D Riley; Harry Hemingway; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2013-02-05       Impact factor: 11.069

9.  Prognosis research strategy (PROGRESS) 4: stratified medicine research.

Authors:  Aroon D Hingorani; Daniëlle A van der Windt; Richard D Riley; Keith Abrams; Karel G M Moons; Ewout W Steyerberg; Sara Schroter; Willi Sauerbrei; Douglas G Altman; Harry Hemingway
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2013-02-05

Review 10.  External validation of multivariable prediction models: a systematic review of methodological conduct and reporting.

Authors:  Gary S Collins; Joris A de Groot; Susan Dutton; Omar Omar; Milensu Shanyinde; Abdelouahid Tajar; Merryn Voysey; Rose Wharton; Ly-Mee Yu; Karel G Moons; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2014-03-19       Impact factor: 4.615

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.