Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35898853›Full record

ReviewJournal of healthcare informatics research2022

Conformal Prediction in Clinical Medical Sciences.

Janette Vazquez, Julio C Facelli

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of healthcare informatics research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Artificial intelligence uncertainty quantification in radiotherapy applications - A scoping review.Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology · 2024
    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

2 authors.

Janette VazquezDepartment of Biomedical Informatics and Clinical and Translational Science Institute, The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84108 USA.
Julio C FacelliDepartment of Biomedical Informatics and Clinical and Translational Science Institute, The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84108 USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1449-477X

Funding

Utah Center for Clinical and Translational ScienceUL1TR002538 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI HESS, RACHEL, MAJERSIK, JENNIFER JUHL · 2018 to 2022
$26.0M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002538
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) applications in medicine has attracted a great deal of attention in the medical literature, but little is known about how to use Conformal Predictions (CP) to assess the accuracy of individual predictions in clinical applications. We performed a comprehensive search in SCOPUS® to find papers reporting the use of CP in clinical applications. We identified 14 papers reporting the use of CP for clinical applications, and we briefly describe the methods and results reported in these papers. The literature reviewed shows that CP methods can be used in clinical applications to provide important insight into the accuracy of individual predictions. Unfortunately, the review also shows that most of the studies have been performed in isolation, without input from practicing clinicians, not providing comparisons among different approaches and not considering important socio-technical considerations leading to clinical adoption.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligence in medicineConformal Prediction, Predictive analyticsUncertainty quantification

Identifiers

PMID35898853
PMCPMC9309105

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.