MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3013557364 · doi:10.1071/hc19087

Precision health through prediction modelling: factors to consider before implementing a prediction model in clinical practice

2020· article· en· W3013557364 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Chowdhury, Tanvir Chowdhury Turin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Primary Health Care · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPredictive modellingReliability (semiconductor)Clinical PracticeHealth careComputer scienceFace validityProcess (computing)Quality (philosophy)Risk analysis (engineering)MedicineMachine learningPsychometricsNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION Precision medical practice emphasises early detection, improved surveillance and prevention through targeted intervention. Prediction models can help identify high-risk individuals to be targeted for healthy behavioural changes or medical treatment to prevent disease development and assist both health professionals and patients to make informed decisions. Concerns exist regarding the adequacy, accuracy, validity and reliability of prediction models. AIM The purpose of this study is to introduce readers to the basic concept of prediction modelling in precision health and recommend factors to consider before implementing a prediction model in clinical practice. METHODS Prediction models developed maintaining proper process and with quality prediction and validation can be used in clinical practice to improve patient care. RESULTS Aspects of prediction models that should be considered before implementation include: appropriateness of the model for the intended purpose; adequacy of the model; validation, face validity and clinical impact studies of the model; a parsimonious model with data easily measured in clinical settings; and easily accessible models with decision support for successful implementation. DISCUSSION Choosing clinical prediction models requires cautious consideration and several practical factors before implementing a model in clinical practice.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptualhigh
grokno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptualhigh
opusno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptualmedium
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.214
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.540
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.786
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2140.540
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0110.013
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0050.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.469
GPT teacher head0.511
Teacher spread0.043 · 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

Labeled directly by 3 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations18
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Primary Health CareSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207