Can nomograms be superior to other prediction tools?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate estimates of the likelihood of treatment success, complications and long-term morbidity are essential for counselling and informed decision-making in patients with urological malignancies. Accurate risk estimates are also required for clinical trial design, to ensure homogeneous patient distribution. Nomograms, risk groupings, artificial neural networks (ANNs), probability tables, and classification and regression tree (CART) analyses represent the available decision aids that can be used within these tasks. We critically reviewed available decision aids (nomograms, risk groupings, ANNs, probability tables and CART analyses) and compared their ability to predict the outcome of interest. Of the available decision aids, nomograms provide individualized evidence-based and highly accurate risk estimates that facilitate management-related decisions. We suggest the use of nomograms for the purpose of evidence-based, individualized decision-making.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.086 | 0.364 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".