ReviewClinical kidney journal2025
When the whole is greater than the sum of its parts: why machine learning and conventional statistics are complementary for predicting future health outcomes.
Review in Clinical kidney journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Physical activity level and its determinants in patients with cancer: a secondary analysis using a decision-tree approach.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2026Article
- Factors associated with work-related musculoskeletal disorders using machine learning approaches: a systematic review.Annals of occupational and environmental medicine · 2026Review
- Machine learning-based prediction of stone-free status following extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.World journal of urology · 2025Article
- A female overactive bladder risk model developed by machine learning: based on 2007-2018 NHANES data.Translational andrology and urology · 2025Article
- [Risk Factors and Prognosis of Pneumoconiosis Combined With Bacterial Pneumonia: Application of a Random Forest Model].Sichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition · 2025Article
- Predictive modelling of vascular surgery trends using machine learning: a comparative study of Irish public and private tertiary referral centres.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An artificial intelligence boom is currently ongoing, mainly due to large language models, leading to significant interest in artificial intelligence and subsequently also in machine learning (ML). One area where ML is often applied, prediction modelling, has also long been a focus of conventional statistics. As a result, multiple studies have aimed to prove superiority of one of the two scientific disciplines over the other. However, we argue that ML and conventional statistics should not be competing fields. Instead, both fields are intertwined and complementary to each other. To illustrate this, we discuss some essentials of prediction modelling, elaborate on prediction modelling using techniques from conventional statistics, and explain prediction modelling using common ML techniques such as support vector machines, random forests, and artificial neural networks. We then showcase that conventional statistics and ML are in fact similar in many aspects, including underlying statistical concepts and methods used in model development and validation. Finally, we argue that conventional statistics and ML can and should be seen as a single integrated field. This integration can further improve prediction modelling for both disciplines (e.g. regarding fairness and reporting standards) and will support the ultimate goal: developing the best performing prediction models for the patient and healthcare provider.
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.