Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34707419›Full record

ArticleRisk management and healthcare policy2021

Machine Learning-Based Prediction for 4-Year Risk of Metabolic Syndrome in Adults: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Hui Zhang, Dandan Chen, Jing Shao, Ping Zou, Nianqi Cui, Leiwen Tang, Xiyi Wang, Dan Wang, Jingjie Wu, Zhihong Ye

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Risk management and healthcare policy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

10 authors.

Hui Zhang *Department of Nursing, Zhejiang University School of Medicine Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China.
Dandan Chen *Department of Nursing, Zhejiang University School of Medicine Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China.
Jing ShaoDepartment of Nursing, Zhejiang University School of Medicine Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China.
Ping ZouDepartment of Scholar Practitioner Program, School of Nursing, Nipissing University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-3973-7830
Nianqi CuiDepartment of Nursing, The Second Affiliated Hospital Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China.
Leiwen TangDepartment of Nursing, Zhejiang University School of Medicine Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China.
Xiyi WangDepartment of Nursing, School of Nursing, Shanghai JiaoTong University, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Dan WangDepartment of Nursing, Zhejiang University School of Medicine Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China.
Jingjie WuDepartment of Nursing, Zhejiang University School of Medicine Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China.
Zhihong YeDepartment of Nursing, Zhejiang University School of Medicine Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeMachine learning (ML) techniques have emerged as a promising tool to predict risk and make decisions in different medical domains. We aimed to compare the predictive performance of machine learning-based methods for 4-year risk of metabolic syndrome in adults with the previous model using logistic regression. PATIENTS AND

methodsThis was a retrospective cohort study that employed a temporal validation strategy. Three popular ML techniques were selected to build the prognostic models. These techniques were artificial neural networks, classification and regression tree, and support vector machine. The logistic regression algorithm and ML techniques used the same five predictors. Discrimination, calibration, Brier score, and decision curve analysis were compared for model performance.

resultsDiscrimination was above 0.7 for all models except classification and regression tree model in internal validation, while the logistic regression model showed the highest discrimination in external validation (0.782) and the smallest discrimination differences. The logistic regression model had the best calibration performance, and ANN also showed satisfactory calibration in internal validation and external validation. For overall performance, logistic regression had the smallest Brier score differences in internal validation and external validation, and it also had the largest net benefit in external validation.

conclusionOverall, this study indicated that the logistic regression model performed as well as the flexible ML-based prediction models at internal validation, while the logistic regression model had the best performance at external validation. For clinical use, when the performance of the logistic regression model is similar to ML-based prediction models, the simplest and more interpretable model should be chosen.

Indexed as

calibrationdiscriminationmachine learningmetabolic syndromeprognosis model

Identifiers

PMID34707419
PMCPMC8543031

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.