Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40050803›Full record

ArticleBMC medicine2025

A decision-analytical perspective on incorporating multiple outcomes in the production of clinical prediction models: defining a taxonomy of risk estimands.

Glen P Martin, Alexander Pate, Siân Bladon, Matthew Sperrin, Richard D Riley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
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

5 authors.

Glen P MartinDivision of Informatics, Imaging and Data Science, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. glen.martin@manchester.ac.uk.
Alexander PateDivision of Informatics, Imaging and Data Science, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Siân BladonDivision of Informatics, Imaging and Data Science, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Matthew SperrinDivision of Informatics, Imaging and Data Science, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Richard D RileyInstitute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

Funding

MRC-NIHR Methodology Research Programme MR/T025085/1UKRI AI programme, and the EPSRC EP/Y028856/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical prediction models (CPMs) estimate an individual's risk of current or future outcome events, using information available about the individual at the time of prediction. While most CPMs are developed to predict a single outcome event, many clinical decisions require considering the risks of multiple outcome events. For example, decision-making for anticoagulation therapy involves assessing an individual's risks of both blood clot and bleeding, while decision-making around interventions for multimorbidity prevention requires an understanding of the risks of developing multiple long-term conditions. However, determining when and how to incorporate multiple outcomes into CPMs remains challenging. This article aims to raise awareness of multiple outcome prediction and present clinical examples where such prediction is essential to help inform individual decision-making. MAIN TEXT: A range of analytical methods are available to develop multiple-outcome CPMs, but there are frequent malapropisms and heterogeneity in terminology across this literature, making it difficult to identify/compare possible methods. Selecting the appropriate method should depend on the intended risk estimand-the type of predicted risks that we wish the CPM to estimate-but this is often not defined or reported. Using clinical examples and a decision-analytical perspective, we present a taxonomy of risk estimands to frame different clinical contexts requiring multiple-outcome CPMs. We outline four levels of risk estimands: (i) single-outcome risk, (ii) competing-outcome risk, (iii) composite-outcome risk, and (iv) risk of multiple outcome combinations. We demonstrate how a decision-analytical and utility-theory lens can help define the risk estimand for a given clinical scenario, based on the model's intended use.

conclusionsClearly defining and reporting the risk estimand is essential for all prediction model studies. A decision-analytical framework aids in selecting the most appropriate estimand for a given prediction task and in determining when and how to incorporate multiple outcomes into CPM development.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingDecision Support TechniquesHumansRisk AssessmentEstimandMulti-labelMultiple outcomeMultivariatePrediction modelling

Identifiers

PMID40050803
PMCPMC11887178

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.