Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35345728›Full record

ReviewCureus2022

Classification Performance of Neural Networks Versus Logistic Regression Models: Evidence From Healthcare Practice.

Richard W Issitt, Mario Cortina-Borja, William Bryant, Stuart Bowyer, Andrew M Taylor, Neil Sebire

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Applying machine learning to construct an association model for lung cancer and environmental hormone high-risk factors and nursing assessment reconstruction.Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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.

Richard W IssittClinical Informatics, Great Ormond Street Hospital, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) University College London (UCL), London, GBR.
Mario Cortina-BorjaStatistics, Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, University College London (UCL), London, GBR.
William BryantClinical Informatics, Great Ormond Street Hospital, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) University College London (UCL), London, GBR.
Stuart BowyerClinical Informatics, Great Ormond Street Hospital, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) University College London (UCL), London, GBR.
Andrew M TaylorClinical Informatics, Great Ormond Street Hospital, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) University College London (UCL), London, GBR.
Neil SebireClinical Informatics, Great Ormond Street Hospital, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) University College London (UCL), London, GBR.

Funding

British Heart Foundation FS/19/52/34563
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Machine learning encompasses statistical approaches such as logistic regression (LR) through to more computationally complex models such as neural networks (NN). The aim of this study is to review current published evidence for performance from studies directly comparing logistic regression, and neural network classification approaches in medicine. A literature review was carried out to identify primary research studies which provided information regarding comparative area under the curve (AUC) values for the overall performance of both LR and NN for a defined clinical healthcare-related problem. Following an initial search, articles were reviewed to remove those that did not meet the criteria and performance metrics were extracted from the included articles. Teh initial search revealed 114 articles; 21 studies were included in the study. In 13/21 (62%) of cases, NN had a greater AUC compared to LR, but in most the difference was small and unlikely to be of clinical significance; (unweighted mean difference in AUC 0.03 (95% CI 0-0.06) in favour of NN versus LR. In the majority of cases examined across a range of clinical settings, LR models provide reasonable performance that is only marginally improved using more complex methods such as NN. In many circumstances, the use of a relatively simple LR model is likely to be adequate for real-world needs but in specific circumstances in which large amounts of data are available, and where even small increases in performance would provide significant management value, the application of advanced analytic tools such as NNs may be indicated.

Indexed as

clinical informaticselectronic health recordslogistic regressionmachine learningneural networkperformance

Identifiers

PMID35345728
PMCPMC8942139

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.