ArticleHealth care management science2015
Classifier calibration using splined empirical probabilities in clinical risk prediction.
Article in Health care management science, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Interoperable Models for Identifying Critically Ill Children at Risk of Neurologic Morbidity.JAMA network open · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The aims of supervised machine learning (ML) applications fall into three broad categories: classification, ranking, and calibration/probability estimation. Many ML methods and evaluation techniques relate to the first two. Nevertheless, there are many applications where having an accurate probability estimate is of great importance. Deriving accurate probabilities from the output of a ML method is therefore an active area of research, resulting in several methods to turn a ranking into class probability estimates. In this manuscript we present a method, splined empirical probabilities, based on the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) to complement existing algorithms such as isotonic regression. Unlike most other methods it works with a cumulative quantity, the ROC curve, and as such can be tagged onto an ROC analysis with minor effort. On a diverse set of measures of the quality of probability estimates (Hosmer-Lemeshow, Kullback-Leibler divergence, differences in the cumulative distribution function) using simulated and real health care data, our approach compares favourably with the standard calibration method, the pool adjacent violators algorithm used to perform isotonic regression.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24557734What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.