mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Consensus statement on the credibility assessment of ML predictors

arXiv 2501.18415 ↗First posted 30 Jan 2025q-bio.QM cs.LGcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The rapid integration of machine learning (ML) predictors into in silico medicine has revolutionized the estimation of quantities of interest (QIs) 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 twelve 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.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 2 of its 24 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 Jan 2025.

Builds on

2 of 24 references.

References · 2

  1. 2020Underspecification Presents Challenges for Credibility in Modern Machine Learningcited by 488
  2. 2020Trust but Verify: Assigning Prediction Credibility by Counterfactual Constrained Learningcited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.