Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33247797›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of epidemiology2020

When will individuals meet their personalized probabilities? A philosophical note on risk prediction.

Olaf M Dekkers, Jesse M Mulder

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of epidemiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

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

  1. Comprehensive comparison of stroke risk score performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis among 6 267 728 patients with atrial fibrillation.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Epidemiology is about disease in populations.European journal of epidemiology · 2020
    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

2 authors.

Olaf M DekkersDepartment Clinical Epidemiology LUMC Leiden (OMD), Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333, Leiden, ZA, The Netherlands. o.m.dekkers@lumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1333-7580
Jesse M MulderDepartment of Philosophy and Religious Studies, Utrecht University (JMM), Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Funding

ZonMW 275-20-068
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Risk prediction is one of the central goals of medicine. However, ultimate prediction-perfectly predicting whether individuals will actually get a disease-is still out of reach for virtually all conditions. One crucial assumption of ultimate personalized prediction is that individual risks in the relevant sense exist. In the present paper we argue that perfect prediction at the individual level will fail-and we will do so by providing pragmatic, epistemic, conceptual, and ontological arguments.

Indexed as

Biological OntologiesHumansPhilosophyPrecision MedicinePredictive Value of TestsProbabilityRisk FactorsIndividual riskOntologyPhilosophyPredictionReference class

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.