Number of Publications on New Clinical Prediction Models: A Bibliometric Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Concerns have been expressed about the abundance of new clinical prediction models (CPMs) proposed in the literature. However, the extent of this proliferation in prediction research remains unclear. Objective: This study aimed to estimate the total and annual number of CPM development-related publications available across all medical fields. Methods: Using a validated search strategy, we conducted a systematic search of literature for prediction model studies published in Pubmed and Embase between 1995 and the end of 2020. By taking random samples for each year, we identified eligible studies that developed a multivariable model (ie, diagnostic or prognostic) for individual-level prediction of a health outcome across all medical fields. Exclusion criteria included development of models with a single predictor, studies not involving humans, methodological studies, conference abstracts, articles with unavailable full text, and those not available in English. We estimated the total and annual number of published regression-based multivariable CPM development articles, based on the total number of publications, proportion of included articles, and the search sensitivity. Furthermore, we used an adjusted Poisson regression to extrapolate our results to the period 1950-2024. Additionally, we estimated the number of articles that developed CPMs using techniques other than regression (eg, machine learning). Results: From a random sample of 10,660 articles published between 1995 and 2020, 109 regression-based CPM development articles were included. We estimated that 82,772 (95% CI 65,313-100,231) CPM development articles using regression were published, with an acceleration in model development from 2010 onward. With the addition of articles that developed non-regression-based CPMs, the number increased to 147,714 (95% CI 125,201-170,226). After extrapolation to the years 1950-2024, the number of articles increased to 156,673 and 248,431 for regression-based models and total CPMs, respectively. Conclusions: Based on a representative sample of publications from the literature, we estimated that nearly 250,000 articles reporting the development of CPMs across all medical fields were published until 2024. CPM development-related publications continue to increase in number. To prevent research waste and close the gap between research and clinical practice, focus should shift away from developing new CPMs to facilitating model validation and impact assessment of the plethora of existing CPMs. Limitations of this study include restriction of search to articles available in English and development of the validated search strategy prior to the popularity of artificial intelligence and machine learning models.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,010 | 0,057 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».