MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3198875596 · doi:10.1183/13993003.01186-2021

Moving beyond AUC: decision curve analysis for quantifying net benefit of risk prediction models

2021· article· en· W3198875596 on OpenAlexaff
Mohsen Sadatsafavi, Amin Adibi, Milo A. Puhan, Andrea S. Gershon, Shawn D. Aaron, Don D. Sin

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Respiratory Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversity of TorontoCentre for Advancing Health OutcomesOttawa HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineReceiver operating characteristicRisk modelArea under the curveStatisticsMachine learningEconometricsRisk analysis (engineering)Internal medicineComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Statistical constructs such as ROC/AUC do not answer the critical question of how much clinical utility a risk prediction model confers. This paper overviews decision curve analysis, a novel method for quantifying net benefit of a risk prediction model.https://bit.ly/3h1rraX

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)0.062
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.231
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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.938
Threshold uncertainty score0.330

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0620.231
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0100.009
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0040.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.007

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 head0.279
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.168 · 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
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

Citations52
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Respiratory JournalSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207