Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36970849›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2023

Integrating economic considerations into cutpoint selection may help align clinical decision support toward value-based healthcare.

Rex Parsons, Robin Blythe, Susanna M Cramb, Steven M McPhail

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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.

Rex ParsonsAustralian Centre for Health Services Innovation and Centre for Healthcare Transformation, School of Public Health and Social Work, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6053-8174
Robin BlytheAustralian Centre for Health Services Innovation and Centre for Healthcare Transformation, School of Public Health and Social Work, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3643-4332
Susanna M CrambAustralian Centre for Health Services Innovation and Centre for Healthcare Transformation, School of Public Health and Social Work, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, Australia.
Steven M McPhailAustralian Centre for Health Services Innovation and Centre for Healthcare Transformation, School of Public Health and Social Work, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveClinical prediction models providing binary categorizations for clinical decision support require the selection of a probability threshold, or "cutpoint," to classify individuals. Existing cutpoint selection approaches typically optimize test-specific metrics, including sensitivity and specificity, but overlook the consequences of correct or incorrect classification. We introduce a new cutpoint selection approach considering downstream consequences using net monetary benefit (NMB) and through simulations compared it with alternative approaches in 2 use-cases: (i) preventing intensive care unit readmission and (ii) preventing inpatient falls. MATERIALS AND

methodsParameter estimates for costs and effectiveness from prior studies were included in Monte Carlo simulations. For each use-case, we simulated the expected NMB resulting from the model-guided decision using a range of cutpoint selection approaches, including our new value-optimizing approach. Sensitivity analyses applied alternative event rates, model discrimination, and calibration performance.

resultsThe proposed approach that considered expected downstream consequences was frequently NMB-maximizing compared with other methods. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that it was or closely tracked the optimal strategy under a range of scenarios. Under scenarios of relatively low event rates and discrimination that may be considered realistic for intensive care (prevalence = 0.025, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC] = 0.70) and falls (prevalence = 0.036, AUC = 0.70), our proposed cutpoint method was either the best or similar to the best of the compared methods regarding NMB, and was robust to model miscalibration. DISCUSSION: Our results highlight the potential value of conditioning cutpoints on the implementation setting, particularly for rare and costly events, which are often the target of prediction model development research.

conclusionsThis study proposes a cutpoint selection method that may optimize clinical decision support systems toward value-based care.

Indexed as

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalDelivery of Health CareHumansModels, TheoreticalSensitivity and SpecificityValue-Based Health Careclinical prediction modelcutpointnet monetary benefitprobability thresholdvalue-based care

Identifiers

PMID36970849
PMCPMC10198528

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.