Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37024840›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2023

Decision curve analysis confirms higher clinical utility of multi-domain versus single-domain prediction models in patients with open abdomen treatment for peritonitis.

Markus Huber, Patrick Schober, Sven Petersen, Markus M Luedi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The impact of radiogenomics on breast cancer.American journal of cancer research · 2025
    Review
  9. 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 at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Markus HuberDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Bern University Hospital, Inselspital, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse 10, Bern, 3010, Switzerland. markus.huber@insel.ch.
Patrick SchoberDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Sven PetersenDepartment of General and Visceral Surgery, Asklepios Hospital Altona, Hamburg, Germany.
Markus M LuediDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Bern University Hospital, Inselspital, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse 10, Bern, 3010, Switzerland.
Asklepios Klinik Altona · DEUniversity Hospital of Bern · CHUniversity of Bern · CHVrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrediction modelling increasingly becomes an important risk assessment tool in perioperative systems approaches, e.g. in complex patients with open abdomen treatment for peritonitis. In this population, combining predictors from multiple medical domains (i.e. demographical, physiological and surgical variables) outperforms the prediction capabilities of single-domain prediction models. However, the benefit of these prediction models for clinical decision-making remains to be investigated. We therefore examined the clinical utility of mortality prediction models in patients suffering from peritonitis with a decision curve analysis.

methodsIn this secondary analysis of a large dataset, a traditional logistic regression approach, three machine learning methods and a stacked ensemble were employed to examine the predictive capability of demographic, physiological and surgical variables in predicting mortality under open abdomen treatment for peritonitis. Calibration was examined with calibration belts and predictive performance was assessed with the area both under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and under the precision recall curve (AUPRC) and with the Brier Score. Clinical utility of the prediction models was examined by means of a decision curve analysis (DCA) within a treatment threshold range of interest of 0-30%, where threshold probabilities are traditionally defined as the minimum probability of disease at which further intervention would be warranted.

resultsMachine learning methods supported available evidence of a higher prediction performance of a multi- versus single-domain prediction models. Interestingly, their prediction performance was similar to a logistic regression model. The DCA demonstrated that the overall net benefit is largest for a multi-domain prediction model and that this benefit is larger compared to the default "treat all" strategy only for treatment threshold probabilities above about 10%. Importantly, the net benefit for low threshold probabilities is dominated by physiological predictors: surgical and demographics predictors provide only secondary decision-analytic benefit.

conclusionsDCA provides a valuable tool to compare single-domain and multi-domain prediction models and demonstrates overall higher decision-analytic value of the latter. Importantly, DCA provides a means to clinically differentiate the risks associated with each of these domains in more depth than with traditional performance metrics and highlighted the importance of physiological predictors for conservative intervention strategies for low treatment thresholds. Further, machine learning methods did not add significant benefit either in prediction performance or decision-analytic utility compared to logistic regression in these data.

Indexed as

Open Abdomen TechniquesPeritonitisClinical Decision-MakingHumansMachine LearningRisk AssessmentCalibrationClinical prediction modellingDecision curve analysisMachine learningPeritonitis

Identifiers

PMID37024840
PMCPMC10078078
OpenAlexW4362673256

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.