Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33431065›Full record

ArticleDiagnostic and prognostic research2021

Continual updating and monitoring of clinical prediction models: time for dynamic prediction systems?

David A Jenkins, Glen P Martin, Matthew Sperrin, Richard D Riley, Thomas P A Debray, Gary S Collins, Niels Peek

Abstract readLetter
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostic and prognostic research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

56 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

7 authors.

David A JenkinsDivision of Informatics, Imaging and Data Science, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK. david.jenkins-5@manchester.ac.uk.
Glen P MartinDivision of Informatics, Imaging and Data Science, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.
Matthew SperrinDivision of Informatics, Imaging and Data Science, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.
Richard D RileyCentre for Prognosis Research, School of Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK.
Thomas P A DebrayJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Gary S CollinsCentre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Niels PeekDivision of Informatics, Imaging and Data Science, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 27294Cancer Research UK C49297/A27294
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical prediction models (CPMs) have become fundamental for risk stratification across healthcare. The CPM pipeline (development, validation, deployment, and impact assessment) is commonly viewed as a one-time activity, with model updating rarely considered and done in a somewhat ad hoc manner. This fails to address the fact that the performance of a CPM worsens over time as natural changes in populations and care pathways occur. CPMs need constant surveillance to maintain adequate predictive performance. Rather than reactively updating a developed CPM once evidence of deteriorated performance accumulates, it is possible to proactively adapt CPMs whenever new data becomes available. Approaches for validation then need to be changed accordingly, making validation a continuous rather than a discrete effort. As such, "living" (dynamic) CPMs represent a paradigm shift, where the analytical methods dynamically generate updated versions of a model through time; one then needs to validate the system rather than each subsequent model revision.

Indexed as

Clinical prediction modelsDynamic modelLearning health systemModel developmentModel updatingValidation

Identifiers

PMID33431065
PMCPMC7797885

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.