Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40276681›Full record

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.

Roemer J Janse, Ameen Abu-Hanna, Iacopo Vagliano, Vianda S Stel, Kitty J Jager, Giovanni Tripepi, Carmine Zoccali, Friedo W Dekker, Merel van Diepen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. [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 · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

9 authors.

Roemer J JanseDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0059-872X
Ameen Abu-HannaDepartment of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4324-7954
Iacopo VaglianoDepartment of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3066-9464
Vianda S StelERA Registry, Department of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0007-1947
Kitty J JagerERA Registry, Department of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0444-8569
Giovanni TripepiCNR-IFC, Clinical Epidemiology and Physiopathology of Renal Diseases and Hypertension, Reggio Calabria, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3580-4602
Carmine ZoccaliCNR-IFC, Clinical Epidemiology and Physiopathology of Renal Diseases and Hypertension, Reggio Calabria, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6616-1996
Friedo W DekkerDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2433-2494
Merel van DiepenDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3211-9500

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

machine learningpredictionprognosisregression analysisstatistics

Identifiers

PMID40276681
PMCPMC12019231

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.