ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025
To Implement or Not to Implement? A Commentary on the Pitfalls of Judging the Value and Risks of Personalized Prognostic Statistical Models.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Unlabelled: Prognostic models in medicine have garnered significant attention, with established guidelines governing their development. However, there remains a lack of clarity regarding the appropriate circumstances for (1) creating and (2) implementing tools based on models with limited performance. This commentary addresses this gap by analyzing the pros and cons of tool development and providing a structured outline that includes critical questions to consider in the decision-making process, based on an example of patients with osteoarthritis. We propose three general justifications for the implementation of survey-based models: (1) mitigation of expectation bias among patients and clinicians, (2) advancement of personalized medicine, and (3) enhancement of existing predictive information sources. Nevertheless, it is crucial to acknowledge that implementing such models is always context-dependent and may harm certain patients, necessitating careful consideration of the withdrawal of tool development and implementation in specific cases. To facilitate the identification of these scenarios, we delineate 16 possibilities following the implementation of a personalized prognostic model and compare the consequences to a current one-size-fits-all treatment recommendation at a population level. Our analysis encompasses the possible patient benefits and harms resulting from implementing or not implementing personalized prognostic models and summarizes them. These findings, together with context-related factors, are important to consider when deciding if, how, and for whom a personalized prognostic tool should be created and implemented. We present a checklist of questions and an Excel sheet calculation table, allowing researchers to weigh the benefits and harms of creating and implementing a personalized prognostic model at a population level against one-size-fits-all standard care in a structured and standardized manner. We condense this into a single value using a uniform Benefit-Risk Score formula. Together with context-related factors, the calculation table and formula are designed to aid researchers in their decision-making process on providing a personalized prognostic tool and deciding for or against its complete or partial implementation. This work serves as a foundation for further discourse and refinement of tool development decisions for prognostic models in health care.
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.