The threshold model revisited
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The threshold model represents one of the most significant advances in the field of medical decision‐making, yet it often does not apply to the most common class of clinical problems, which include health outcomes as a part of definition of disease. In addition, the original threshold model did not take a decision‐maker's values and preferences explicitly into account. Methods We reformulated the threshold model by (1) applying it to those clinical scenarios, which define disease according to outcomes that treatment is designed to affect, (2) taking into account a decision‐maker's values. Results We showed that when outcomes (eg, morbidity) are integral part of definition of disease, the classic threshold model does not apply (as this leads to double counting of outcomes in the probabilities and utilities branches of the model). To avoid double counting, the model can be appropriately analysed by assuming diagnosis is certain (P = 1). This results in deriving a different threshold—the threshold for outcome of disease (Mt) instead of threshold for probability of disease (Pt) above which benefits of treatment outweigh its harms. We found that Mt ≤ Pt, which may explain differences between normative models and actual behaviour in practice. When a decision‐maker values outcomes related to benefit and harms differently, the new threshold model generates decision thresholds that could be descriptively more accurate. Conclusions Calculation of the threshold depends on careful disease versus utility definitions and a decision‐maker's values and preferences.
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 | 0.011 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".