MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393336520 · doi:10.1016/j.acap.2024.03.016

Clinical prediction models in children that use repeated measurements with time-varying covariates: a scoping review

2024· review· en· W4393336520 on OpenAlexafffund
Alastair Fung, Miranda G. Loutet, Daniel Roth, Elliott Wong, Peter J. Gill, Shaun K. Morris, Joseph Beyene

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Pediatrics · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoCentre for Global Health ResearchHospital for Sick Children
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchSickkids Research Institute
KeywordsCovariateRepeated measures designMedicinePsychologyStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Emerging evidence suggests that clinical prediction models that use repeated (time-varying) measurements within each patient may have higher predictive accuracy than models that use patient information from a single measurement. OBJECTIVE: To determine the breadth of the published literature reporting the development of clinical prediction models in children that use time-varying predictors. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included studies reporting the development of a multivariable clinical prediction model in children, with or without validation, to predict a repeatedly measured binary or time-to-event outcome and utilizing at least one repeatedly measured predictor. SYNTHESIS METHODS: We categorized included studies by the method used to model time-varying predictors. RESULTS: Of 99 clinical prediction model studies that had a repeated measurements data structure, only 27 (27%) used methods that incorporated the repeated measurements as time-varying predictors in a single model. Among these 27 time-varying prediction model studies, we grouped model types into nine categories: time-dependent Cox regression, generalized estimating equations, random effects model, landmark model, joint model, neural network, K-nearest neighbor, support vector machine and tree-based algorithms. Where there was comparison of time-varying models to single measurement models, using time-varying predictors improved predictive accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: Various methods have been used to develop time-varying prediction models in children, but there is a paucity of pediatric time-varying models in the literature. Incorporating time-varying covariates in pediatric prediction models may improve predictive accuracy. Future research in pediatric prediction model development should further investigate whether incorporation of time-varying covariates improves predictive accuracy.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.068
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.068
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.013
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.394
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.068 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueAcademic PediatricsSame topicSepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207