The reporting quality and methodological quality of dynamic prediction models for cancer prognosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the reporting quality and methodological quality of dynamic prediction model (DPM) studies on cancer prognosis. METHODS: Extensive search for DPM studies on cancer prognosis was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases. The Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) and the Prediction model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) were used to assess reporting quality and methodological quality, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 34 DPM studies were identified since the first publication in 2005, the main modeling methods for DPMs included the landmark model and the joint model. Regarding the reporting quality, the median overall TRIPOD adherence score was 75%. The TRIPOD items were poorly reported, especially the title (23.53%), model specification, including presentation (55.88%) and interpretation (50%) of the DPM usage, and implications for clinical use and future research (29.41%). Concerning methodological quality, most studies were of low quality (n = 30) or unclear (n = 3), mainly due to statistical analysis issues. CONCLUSIONS: The Landmark model and joint model show potential in DPM. The suboptimal reporting and methodological qualities of current DPM studies should be improved to facilitate clinical application.
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 | 0.582 | 0.837 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier 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".