Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35353221›Full record

ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2022

Machine learning versus logistic regression for prognostic modelling in individuals with non-specific neck pain.

Bernard X W Liew, Francisco M Kovacs, David Rügamer, Ana Royuela

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Deep Learning in Scaphoid Nonunion Treatment.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Predicting inferior vena cava filter complications using machine learning.Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders · 2024
    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

4 authors.

Bernard X W LiewSchool of Sport, Rehabilitation and Exercise Sciences, University of Essex, Colchester, Essex, UK. bl19622@essex.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7057-7548
Francisco M KovacsUnidad de la Espalda Kovacs, Hospital Universitario HLA-Moncloa. University Hospital, Avenida de Menéndez Pelayo, 67, 28009, Madrid, Spain.
David RügamerDepartment of Statistics, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, München, Germany.
Ana RoyuelaBiostatistics Unit. Hospital Puerta de Hierro, IDIPHISA, CIBERESP, REIDE, Madrid, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePrognostic models play an important clinical role in the clinical management of neck pain disorders. No study has compared the performance of modern machine learning (ML) techniques, against more traditional regression techniques, when developing prognostic models in individuals with neck pain.

methodsA total of 3001 participants suffering from neck pain were included into a clinical registry database. Three dichotomous outcomes of a clinically meaningful improvement in neck pain, arm pain, and disability at 3 months follow-up were used. There were 26 predictors included, five numeric and 21 categorical. Seven modelling techniques were used (logistic regression, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator [LASSO], gradient boosting [Xgboost], K nearest neighbours [KNN], support vector machine [SVM], random forest [RF], and artificial neural networks [ANN]). The primary measure of model performance was the area under the receiver operator curve (AUC) of the validation set.

resultsThe ML algorithm with the greatest AUC for predicting arm pain (AUC = 0.765), neck pain (AUC = 0.726), and disability (AUC = 0.703) was Xgboost. The improvement in classification AUC from stepwise logistic regression to the best performing machine learning algorithms was 0.081, 0.103, and 0.077 for predicting arm pain, neck pain, and disability, respectively.

conclusionThe improvement in prediction performance between ML and logistic regression methods in the present study, could be due to the potential greater nonlinearity between baseline predictors and clinical outcome. The benefit of machine learning in prognostic modelling may be dependent on factors like sample size, variable type, and disease investigated.

Indexed as

Machine LearningNeck PainHumansLogistic ModelsNeural Networks, ComputerPrognosisMachine learningNeck painPrognosisStatistics

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.