Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34782696›Full record

ArticleNPJ digital medicine2021

The Framing of machine learning risk prediction models illustrated by evaluation of sepsis in general wards.

Simon Meyer Lauritsen, Bo Thiesson, Marianne Johansson Jørgensen, Anders Hammerich Riis, Ulrick Skipper Espelund, Jesper Bo Weile, Jeppe Lange

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
6.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 62 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Simon Meyer LauritsenEnversion A/S, Fiskerivej 12, 1st floor, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark. sla@enversion.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8823-5047
Bo ThiessonEnversion A/S, Fiskerivej 12, 1st floor, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark.
Marianne Johansson JørgensenDepartment of Research, Horsens Regional Hospital, Horsens, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3932-4822
Anders Hammerich RiisEnversion A/S, Fiskerivej 12, 1st floor, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark.
Ulrick Skipper EspelundDepartment of Research, Horsens Regional Hospital, Horsens, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3659-650X
Jesper Bo WeileEmergency Department, Horsens Regional Hospital, Horsens, Denmark.
Jeppe LangeDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus N, Denmark.
Aarhus University · DKRegional Hospital Horsens · DKAarhus University Hospital · DK

Funding

Innovationsfonden (Innovation Fund Denmark) 8053-00076B
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Problem framing is critical to developing risk prediction models because all subsequent development work and evaluation takes place within the context of how a problem has been framed and explicit documentation of framing choices makes it easier to compare evaluation metrics between published studies. In this work, we introduce the basic concepts of framing, including prediction windows, observation windows, window shifts and event-triggers for a prediction that strongly affects the risk of clinician fatigue caused by false positives. Building on this, we apply four different framing structures to the same generic dataset, using a sepsis risk prediction model as an example, and evaluate how framing affects model performance and learning. Our results show that an apparently good model with strong evaluation results in both discrimination and calibration is not necessarily clinically usable. Therefore, it is important to assess the results of objective evaluations within the context of more subjective evaluations of how a model is framed.

Identifiers

PMID34782696
PMCPMC8593052
OpenAlexW3214405491

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.