Observational studyBMC medical informatics and decision making2025
Comparing conventional and Bayesian workflows for clinical outcome prediction modelling with an exemplar cohort study of severe COVID-19 infection incorporating clinical biomarker test results.
Observational study in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Automated machine learning model to predict anti-tuberculosis drug-induced liver injury in patients with tuberculous meningitis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- A machine learning model for predicting obesity risk in patients with diabetes mellitus: analysis of NHANES 2007-2018.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Comparative analysis of frequentist, Bayesian, and machine learning models for predicting SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeAssessing risk factors and creating prediction models from real-world medical data is challenging, requiring numerous modelling decisions with clinical guidance. Logistic regression is a common model for such studies, for which we advocate the use of Bayesian methods that can jointly deliver probabilistic risk factor inference and prediction. As an exemplar, we compare Bayesian logistic regression with horseshoe priors and Projective Prediction variable selection with the established frequentist LASSO approach, to predict severe COVID-19 outcomes (death or ICU admittance) from demographic and laboratory biomarker data. Our study serves as guidance on data curation, variable selection, and performance assessment with cross-validation.
methodsOur source data is based on a retrospective observational cohort design with records from three National Health Service (NHS) Trusts in southwest England, UK. Models were fit to predict severe outcomes within 28 days after admission to hospital (or a positive PCR result if already admitted) using demographic data and the first result from 30 biomarker tests collected within 3 days after admission (or testing positive if already admitted).
resultsPatients included hospitalized adults positive for COVID-19 from March to October 2020, 756 total patients: Mean age 71, 45% female, 31% (n=234) had a severe outcome, of whom 88% (n=206) died. Patients were split into training (n=534) and external validation groups (n=222). Using our Bayesian pipeline, we show a reduced variable model using Age, Urea, Prothrombin time (PT) C-reactive protein (CRP), and Neutrophil-Lymphocyte ratio (NLR) has better predictive performance (median external AUC: 0.71, 95% Quantile [0.7, 0.72]) relative to a GLM using all variables (external AUC: 0.67 [0.63, 0.71]).
conclusionUrea, PT, CRP, and NLR have been highlighted by other studies, and respectively suggest that hypovolemia, derangement of circulation via clotting, and inflammation are strong predictive risk factors of severity. This study provides guidance on conventional and Bayesian regression and prediction modelling with complex clinical data.
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.