MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136085913 · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001381

Prognosis Research Strategy (PROGRESS) 3: Prognostic Model Research

2013· review· en· W2136085913 on OpenAlexafffund
Ewout W. Steyerberg, Karel G.M. Moons, Daniëlle van der Windt, Jill A. Hayden, Pablo Perel, Sara Schroter, Richard D Riley, Harry Hemingway, Douglas G. Altman

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Medicine · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip and Femur Fractures
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersEconomic and Social Research CouncilEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilKeele UniversityCancer Research UKDalhousie UniversityNational Institutes of HealthUniversity of BirminghamUniversity of OxfordNova Scotia Health Research FoundationBritish Heart FoundationUniversity College LondonNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchMedical Research CouncilVersus ArthritisLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical MedicineNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekWellcome TrustCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchQueen Mary University of London
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care medicineClinical PracticeMEDLINEPrognostic modelManagement scienceFamily medicineOverall survivalInternal medicinePolitical scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prognostic models are abundant in the medical literature yet their use in practice seems limited. In this article, the third in the PROGRESS series, the authors review how such models are developed and validated, and then address how prognostic models are assessed for their impact on practice and patient outcomes, illustrating these ideas with examples.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.007

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.

Opus teacher head0.622
GPT teacher head0.561
Teacher spread0.061 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1,541
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS MedicineSame topicHip and Femur FracturesFrench-language works237,207