ReviewNutrients2025
Methodological Review of Classification Trees for Risk Stratification: An Application Example in the Obesity Paradox.
Review in Nutrients, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Risk stratification and prognostic outcomes in intracerebral hemorrhage among patients with chronic kidney disease: a population-oriented meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Dynamic multimodal brain function monitoring enables quantitative severity grading and prognostic prediction in pediatric neurocritical care.Jornal de pediatria · 2026Article
- Article
- Phenotypic Heterogeneity of Obesity and Short-Term Cardiometabolic Risk Factors Transitions: A Population-Based Cohort Study.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2026Article
- Determinants of Non-Receipt of Guideline-Concordant Treatment in Pancreatic Cancer: A Classification Tree Analysis.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Preoperative Nutritional Risk Defines Treatment Tolerance and Guides Adjuvant Immunotherapy in Resectable Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Dose-Response Relationships Between Physical Activity, Dietary Behaviors, and Excess Body Weight: Identification of Behavioral Risk Patterns.Nutrients · 2026Article
- Interpretable machine-learning prediction of severe myelosuppression in colorectal cancer patients receiving chemotherapy using XGBoost and SHAP: a retrospective study with a web-based calculator.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Public health risk stratification using hybrid machine learning: a reproducible analysis of performance, stability, and risk attribution.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Risk Profiles of Poor Diet Quality Among University Students: A Multivariate Segmentation Analysis.Nutrients · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClassification trees (CTs) are widely used machine learning algorithms with growing applications in clinical research, especially for risk stratification. Their ability to generate interpretable decision rules makes them attractive to healthcare professionals. This review provides an accessible yet rigorous overview of CT methodology for clinicians, highlighting their utility through a case study addressing the "obesity paradox" in critically ill patients.
methodsWe describe key methodological aspects of CTs, including model development, pruning, validation, and classification types (simple, ensemble, and hybrid). Using data from the ENPIC (Evaluation of Practical Nutrition Practices in the Critical Care Patient) study, which assessed artificial nutrition in ICU (intensive care unit) patients, we applied various CT approaches-CART (classification and regression trees), CHAID (chi-square automatic interaction detection), and XGBoost (extreme gradient boosting)-and compared them with logistic regression. SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanation) values were used to interpret ensemble models.
resultsCTs allowed for identification of optimal cut-off points in continuous variables and revealed complex, non-linear interactions among predictors. Although the obesity paradox was not confirmed in the full cohort, CTs uncovered a specific subgroup in which obesity was associated with reduced mortality. The ensemble model (XGBoost) achieved the best predictive performance (highest area under the ROC curve), though at the expense of interpretability.
conclusionsCTs are valuable tools in clinical epidemiology, complementing traditional models by uncovering hidden patterns and enhancing risk stratification. While ensemble models offer superior predictive accuracy, their complexity necessitates interpretability techniques such as SHAP. CT-based approaches can guide personalized medicine but require cautious interpretation and external validation.
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.