ArticleScientific reports2024
A comparative patient-level prediction study in OMOP CDM: applicative potential and insights from synthetic data.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimising enteral feeding prevents postnatal growth faltering in preterm infants: a retrospective cohort study.BMJ nutrition, prevention & health · 2026Article
- PRICE: a personalized recursive intelligent cost effectiveness analysis framework for rare disease diagnosis.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- Developing a Machine Learning Model for Predicting 30-Day Major Adverse Cardiac and Cerebrovascular Events in Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery: Retrospective Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Observational
- Predictive Modeling for Pandemic Forecasting: A COVID-19 Study in New Zealand and Partner Countries.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- A Current Perspective of Medical Informatics Developments for a Clinical Translation of (Non-coding)RNAs and Single-Cell Technologies.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence Reporting Guidelines' Adherence in Nephrology for Improved Research and Clinical Outcomes.Biomedicines · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The emergence of collaborations, which standardize and combine multiple clinical databases across different regions, provide a wealthy source of data, which is fundamental for clinical prediction models, such as patient-level predictions. With the aid of such large data pools, researchers are able to develop clinical prediction models for improved disease classification, risk assessment, and beyond. To fully utilize this potential, Machine Learning (ML) methods are commonly required to process these large amounts of data on disease-specific patient cohorts. As a consequence, the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI) collaborative develops a framework to facilitate the application of ML models for these standardized patient datasets by using the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) common data model (CDM). In this study, we compare the feasibility of current web-based OHDSI approaches, namely ATLAS and "Patient-level Prediction" (PLP), against a native solution (R based) to conduct such ML-based patient-level prediction analyses in OMOP. This will enable potential users to select the most suitable approach for their investigation. Each of the applied ML solutions was individually utilized to solve the same patient-level prediction task. Both approaches went through an exemplary benchmarking analysis to assess the weaknesses and strengths of the PLP R-Package. In this work, the performance of this package was subsequently compared versus the commonly used native R-package called Machine Learning in R 3 (mlr3), and its sub-packages. The approaches were evaluated on performance, execution time, and ease of model implementation. The results show that the PLP package has shorter execution times, which indicates great scalability, as well as intuitive code implementation, and numerous possibilities for visualization. However, limitations in comparison to native packages were depicted in the implementation of specific ML classifiers (e.g., Lasso), which may result in a decreased performance for real-world prediction problems. The findings here contribute to the overall effort of developing ML-based prediction models on a clinical scale and provide a snapshot for future studies that explicitly aim to develop patient-level prediction models in OMOP CDM.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.