ArticleBMJ health & care informatics2025
Finding a constrained number of predictor phenotypes for multiple outcome prediction.
Article in BMJ health & care informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transforming healthcare with evidence-based digital health innovations.BMJ health & care informatics · 2025Article
- Can we develop real-world prognostic models using observational healthcare data? Large-scale experiment to investigate model sensitivity to database and phenotypes.Diagnostic and prognostic research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrognostic models help aid medical decision-making. Various prognostic models are available via websites such as MDCalc, but these models typically predict one outcome, for example, stroke risk. Each model requires individual predictors, for example, age, lab results and comorbidities. There is no clinical tool available to predict multiple outcomes from a list of common medical predictors.
objectiveIdentify a constrained set of outcome-agnostic predictors.
methodsWe proposed a novel technique aggregating the standardised mean difference across hundreds of outcomes to learn a constrained set of predictors that appear to be predictive of many outcomes. Model performance was evaluated using the constrained set of predictors across eight prediction tasks. We compared against existing models, models using only age/sex predictors and models without any predictor constraints.
resultsWe identified 67 predictors in our constrained set, plus age/sex. Our predictors included illnesses in the following categories: cardiovascular, kidney/liver, mental health, gastrointestinal, infectious and oncologic. Models developed using the constrained set of predictors achieved comparable discrimination compared with models using hundreds or thousands of predictors for five of the eight prediction tasks and slightly lower discrimination for three of the eight tasks. The constrained predictor models performed as good or better than all existing clinical models.
conclusionsIt is possible to develop models for hundreds or thousands of outcomes that use the same small set of predictors. This makes it feasible to implement many prediction models via a single website form. Our set of predictors can also be used for future models and prognostic model research.
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.