Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35249534›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2022

Individual-specific networks for prediction modelling - A scoping review of methods.

Mariella Gregorich, Federico Melograna, Martina Sunqvist, Stefan Michiels, Kristel Van Steen, Georg Heinze

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

6 authors.

Mariella GregorichSection for Clinical Biometrics, Center for Medical Statistics, Informatics and Intelligent Systems, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Federico MelogranaBIO3 Laboratory for Systems Medicine, Department of Human Genetics, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Martina SunqvistService de Biostatistique et d'Epidémiologie, Gustave Roussy, Oncostat U1018, Inserm, University Paris-Saclay, labeled Ligue Contre le Cancer, Villejuif, France.
Stefan MichielsService de Biostatistique et d'Epidémiologie, Gustave Roussy, Oncostat U1018, Inserm, University Paris-Saclay, labeled Ligue Contre le Cancer, Villejuif, France.
Kristel Van SteenBIO3 Laboratory for Systems Medicine, Department of Human Genetics, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Georg HeinzeSection for Clinical Biometrics, Center for Medical Statistics, Informatics and Intelligent Systems, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. georg.heinze@meduniwien.ac.at.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecent advances in biotechnology enable the acquisition of high-dimensional data on individuals, posing challenges for prediction models which traditionally use covariates such as clinical patient characteristics. Alternative forms of covariate representations for the features derived from these modern data modalities should be considered that can utilize their intrinsic interconnection. The connectivity information between these features can be represented as an individual-specific network defined by a set of nodes and edges, the strength of which can vary from individual to individual. Global or local graph-theoretical features describing the network may constitute potential prognostic biomarkers instead of or in addition to traditional covariates and may replace the often unsuccessful search for individual biomarkers in a high-dimensional predictor space.

methodsWe conducted a scoping review to identify, collate and critically appraise the state-of-art in the use of individual-specific networks for prediction modelling in medicine and applied health research, published during 2000-2020 in the electronic databases PubMed, Scopus and Embase.

resultsOur scoping review revealed the main application areas namely neurology and pathopsychology, followed by cancer research, cardiology and pathology (N = 148). Network construction was mainly based on Pearson correlation coefficients of repeated measurements, but also alternative approaches (e.g. partial correlation, visibility graphs) were found. For covariates measured only once per individual, network construction was mostly based on quantifying an individual's contribution to the overall group-level structure. Despite the multitude of identified methodological approaches for individual-specific network inference, the number of studies that were intended to enable the prediction of clinical outcomes for future individuals was quite limited, and most of the models served as proof of concept that network characteristics can in principle be useful for prediction.

conclusionThe current body of research clearly demonstrates the value of individual-specific network analysis for prediction modelling, but it has not yet been considered as a general tool outside the current areas of application. More methodological research is still needed on well-founded strategies for network inference, especially on adequate network sparsification and outcome-guided graph-theoretical feature extraction and selection, and on how networks can be exploited efficiently for prediction modelling.

Indexed as

BiomarkerGenomicsGraph theoryIndividual-specific networkMethodological reviewNetwork analysisNeurologyPathopsychologyPersonalized medicinePrediction

Identifiers

PMID35249534
PMCPMC8898441

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.