Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32380551›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of epidemiology2021

Reflection on modern methods: generalized linear models for prognosis and intervention-theory, practice and implications for machine learning.

Kellyn F Arnold, Vinny Davies, Marc de Kamps, Peter W G Tennant, John Mbotwa, Mark S Gilthorpe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of epidemiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Predicting health-related quality of life two years post-diagnosis across seven cancer types: using machine learning to identify vulnerable patients.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Improved intrahospital transport time via proximity-based staff assignments.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025
    Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Human Substantia Nigra Neurons Encode Reward Expectations.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Kellyn F ArnoldLeeds Institute for Data Analytics, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Vinny DaviesSchool of Computing Science, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Marc de KampsLeeds Institute for Data Analytics, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Peter W G TennantLeeds Institute for Data Analytics, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
John MbotwaLeeds Institute for Data Analytics, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Mark S GilthorpeLeeds Institute for Data Analytics, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prediction and causal explanation are fundamentally distinct tasks of data analysis. In health applications, this difference can be understood in terms of the difference between prognosis (prediction) and prevention/treatment (causal explanation). Nevertheless, these two concepts are often conflated in practice. We use the framework of generalized linear models (GLMs) to illustrate that predictive and causal queries require distinct processes for their application and subsequent interpretation of results. In particular, we identify five primary ways in which GLMs for prediction differ from GLMs for causal inference: (i) the covariates that should be considered for inclusion in (and possibly exclusion from) the model; (ii) how a suitable set of covariates to include in the model is determined; (iii) which covariates are ultimately selected and what functional form (i.e. parameterization) they take; (iv) how the model is evaluated; and (v) how the model is interpreted. We outline some of the potential consequences of failing to acknowledge and respect these differences, and additionally consider the implications for machine learning (ML) methods. We then conclude with three recommendations that we hope will help ensure that both prediction and causal modelling are used appropriately and to greatest effect in health research.

Indexed as

Machine LearningCausalityHumansLinear ModelsPrognosisartificial intelligencecausal inferencedirected acyclic graphsgeneralized linear modelsmachine learningPrediction

Identifiers

PMID32380551
PMCPMC7825942

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.