Consensus statement on the credibility assessment of machine learning predictors.
expert_opinion · Level V
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 40062621.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1093/bib/bbaf100 and PMC identifier 11891646.
- Licence recorded as CC BY-NC.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
The rapid integration of machine learning (ML) predictors into in silico medicine has revolutionized the estimation of quantities of interest that are otherwise challenging to measure directly. However, the credibility of these predictors is critical, especially when they inform high-stakes healthcare decisions. This position paper presents a consensus statement developed by experts within the In Silico World Community of Practice. We outline 12 key statements forming the theoretical foundation for evaluating the credibility of ML predictors, emphasizing the necessity of causal knowledge, rigorous error quantification, and robustness to biases. By comparing ML predictors with biophysical models, we highlight unique challenges associated with implicit causal knowledge and propose strategies to ensure reliability and applicability. Our recommendations aim to guide researchers, developers, and regulators in the rigorous assessment and deployment of ML predictors in clinical and biomedical contexts.
Medical subject headings
- Machine Learning
- Computational Biology