Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35353054›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2022

A Comparison of Different Modeling Techniques in Predicting Mortality With the Tilburg Frailty Indicator: Longitudinal Study.

Tjeerd van der Ploeg, Robbert Gobbens

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Tjeerd van der PloegFaculty of Health, Sports and Social Work, Inholland University of Applied Sciences, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0429-6753
Robbert Gobbens *Faculty of Health, Sports and Social Work, Inholland University of Applied Sciences, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6225-5189
Inholland University of Applied Sciences · NLUniversity of Antwerp · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundModern modeling techniques may potentially provide more accurate predictions of dichotomous outcomes than classical techniques.

objectiveIn this study, we aimed to examine the predictive performance of eight modeling techniques to predict mortality by frailty.

methodsWe performed a longitudinal study with a 7-year follow-up. The sample consisted of 479 Dutch community-dwelling people, aged 75 years and older. Frailty was assessed with the Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI), a self-report questionnaire. This questionnaire consists of eight physical, four psychological, and three social frailty components. The municipality of Roosendaal, a city in the Netherlands, provided the mortality dates. We compared modeling techniques, such as support vector machine (SVM), neural network (NN), random forest, and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator, as well as classical techniques, such as logistic regression, two Bayesian networks, and recursive partitioning (RP). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) indicated the performance of the models. The models were validated using bootstrapping.

resultsWe found that the NN model had the best validated performance (AUROC=0.812), followed by the SVM model (AUROC=0.705). The other models had validated AUROC values below 0.700. The RP model had the lowest validated AUROC (0.605). The NN model had the highest optimism (0.156). The predictor variable "difficulty in walking" was important for all models.

conclusionsBecause of the high optimism of the NN model, we prefer the SVM model for predicting mortality among community-dwelling older people using the TFI, with the addition of "gender" and "age" variables. External validation is a necessary step before applying the prediction models in a new setting.

Indexed as

area under the receiver operating characteristic curvebootstrappingmodeling techniquespredictor variable importancevalidation

Identifiers

PMID35353054
PMCPMC8992962
OpenAlexW4205710157

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.