CHARMS and PROBAST+AI: an updated template for Data Extraction and Risk of Bias Assessment in systematic reviews of prediction models
Jaber, A.; Hughes, L.; Cameron, A. C.; Quinn, T. J.
Show abstract
Background: Systematic reviews of clinical prediction models increasingly include studies using artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) methods alongside traditional multivariable regression approaches. A previously published Excel tool enabled standardised data extraction using the CHARMS checklist and risk of bias assessment using PROBAST. The recent publication of the PROBAST+AI framework, which distinguishes the assessment of model development quality from the assessment of model evaluation risk of bias and assesses applicability in both parts, necessitates an updated digital instrument applicable across prediction modelling methods. Methods: We updated an open-access Excel tool to incorporate the full PROBAST+AI framework. The updated template incorporates structural separation between assessment of model development quality and model evaluation risk of bias, with applicability assessed in both parts. It also incorporates updated signalling questions, including those addressing methodological issues particularly relevant to AI/ML, and automates the generation of summary tables and graphical displays. Results: The updated tool (CHARMS & PROBAST+AI Template) contains 11 worksheets and supports data extraction and appraisal for up to 30 prediction models. Dedicated, linked worksheets enable separate assessment of model development and model evaluation, with Domain 4 distinguishing among Apparent, Internal, and External evaluation settings. Key updates include dedicated assessments for predictor pre-processing, class imbalance handling and recalibration, data leakage prevention, and replication of the full model development pipeline within resampling procedures. Automated sheets dynamically format tables and summary charts covering PROBAST+AI parts. Conclusions: The CHARMS & PROBAST+AI Excel template provides a standardised, user-friendly, and rigorous digital framework for systematic reviewers appraising traditional statistical and AI-driven clinical prediction models.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Agreeability testing of AMSTAR-PF, a tool for quality appraisal of systematic reviews of prognostic factor studies 96%
- Protocol for the development of a tool (INSPECT-SR) to identify problematic randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of health interventions 95%
- The incubation period of COVID-19: A rapid systematic review and meta-analysis of observational research 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Incorporating Preprints in Systematic Reviews: A Preliminary Study of a Novel Method for Rapid Evidence Synthesis 95%
- Use of unstructured text in prognostic clinical prediction models: a systematic review 94%
- Beyond Metrics to Methods: A Scoping Review of Large Language Models for Detection of Social Drivers of Health in Clinical Notes 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Exploring scalable assessment methods for terminated trials in ClinicalTrials.gov: A cohort analysis of German and Californian trials 94%
- Early clinical characteristics of Covid-19: scoping review 93%
- Common misconceptions held by health researchers when interpreting linear regression assumptions, a cross-sectional study 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation of the sensitivity, accuracy and currency of the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register for supporting rapid evidence synthesis production 95%
- Machine learning for identifying relevant publications in updates of systematic reviews of diagnostic test studies 95%
- Exploring the potential of Claude 2 for risk of bias assessment: Using a large language model to assess randomized controlled trials with RoB 2 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Completeness of reporting of clinical prediction models developed using supervised machine learning: A systematic review 96%
- Evaluation of SURUS: a Named Entity Recognition System to Extract Knowledge from Interventional Study Records 95%
- Approaches in Analyzing Predictors of Trial Failure: A Scoping Review and Meta-epidemiological study 94%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.