<p>Reporting and Methods in Developing Prognostic Prediction Models for Metabolic Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal</p>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: A prognostic prediction model for metabolic syndrome can calculate the probability of risk of experiencing metabolic syndrome within a specific period for individualized treatment decisions. We aimed to provide a systematic review and critical appraisal on prognostic models for metabolic syndrome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Studies were identified through searching in English databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science) and Chinese databases (Sinomed, WANFANG, CNKI, and CQVIP). A checklist for critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modeling studies (CHARMS) and the prediction model risk of bias assessment tool (PROBAST) were used for the data extraction process and critical appraisal. RESULTS: From the 29,668 retrieved articles, eleven studies meeting the selection criteria were included in this review. Forty-eight predictors were identified from prognostic prediction models. The c-statistic ranged from 0.67 to 0.95. Critical appraisal has shown that all modeling studies were subject to a high risk of bias in methodological quality mainly driven by outcome and statistical analysis, and six modeling studies were subject to a high risk of bias in applicability. CONCLUSION: Future model development and validation studies should adhere to the transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement to improve methodological quality and applicability, thus increasing the transparency of the reporting of a prediction model study. It is not appropriate to adopt any of the identified models in this study for clinical practice since all models are prone to optimism and overfitting.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".