ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2020
Patient-Specific Modeling with Personalized Decision Paths.
Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Algorithmic individual fairness and healthcare: a scoping review.JAMIA open · 2025Article
- Algorithmic Individual Fairness and Healthcare: A Scoping Review.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
- Veteran Truckers, the Supply Chain, and the Metabolic Syndrome: A Convergence of Crises.American journal of public health · 2023Article
- An individualized causal framework for learning intercellular communication networks that define microenvironments of individual tumors.PLoS computational biology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Predictive models can be useful in predicting patient outcomes under uncertainty. Many algorithms employ "population" methods, which optimize a single model to perform well on average over an entire population, but the model may perform poorly on some patients. Personalized methods optimize predictive performance for each patient by tailoring the model to the individual. We present a new personalized method based on decision trees: the Personalized Decision Path using a Bayesian score (PDP-Bay). Performance on eight synthetic, genomic, and clinical datasets was compared to that of decision trees and a previously described personalized decision path method in terms of area under the ROC curve (AUC) and expected calibration error (ECE). Model complexity was measured by average path length. The PDP-Bay model outperformed the decision tree in terms of both AUC and ECE. The results support the conclusion that personalization may achieve better predictive performance and produce simpler models than population approaches.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33936434PMC8075540What 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.