Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40691628›Full record

ArticleDiagnostic and prognostic research2025

A comparison of modeling approaches for static and dynamic prediction of central-line bloodstream infections using electronic health records (part 1): regression models.

Shan Gao, Elena Albu, Hein Putter, Pieter Stijnen, Frank E Rademakers, Veerle Cossey, Yves Debaveye, Christel Janssens, Ben Van Calster, Laure Wynants

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostic and prognostic research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

10 authors.

Shan GaoDepartment of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49 - box 805, Leuven, 3000, Belgium.
Elena AlbuDepartment of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49 - box 805, Leuven, 3000, Belgium.
Hein PutterDepartment of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Pieter StijnenManagement Information Reporting Department, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Frank E RademakersFaculty of Medicine, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Veerle CosseyDepartment of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49 - box 805, Leuven, 3000, Belgium.
Yves DebaveyeDepartment of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Christel JanssensNursing PICC Team, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Ben Van CalsterDepartment of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49 - box 805, Leuven, 3000, Belgium. ben.vancalster@kuleuven.be.
Laure WynantsDepartment of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49 - box 805, Leuven, 3000, Belgium.

Funding

KU Leuven Internal Funds C24M/20/064
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHospitals register information in the electronic health records (EHRs) continuously until discharge or death. As such, there is no censoring for in-hospital outcomes. We aimed to compare different static and dynamic regression modeling approaches to predict central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) in EHR while accounting for competing events precluding CLABSI.

methodsWe analyzed data from 30,862 catheter episodes at University Hospitals Leuven from 2012 and 2013 to predict 7-day risk of CLABSI. Competing events are discharge and death. Static models using information at catheter onset included logistic, multinomial logistic, Cox, cause-specific hazard, and Fine-Gray regression. Dynamic models updated predictions daily up to 30 days after catheter onset (i.e., landmarks 0 to 30 days) and included landmark supermodel extensions of the static models, separate Fine-Gray models per landmark time, and regularized multi-task learning (RMTL). Model performance was assessed using 100 random 2:1 train-test splits.

resultsThe Cox model performed worst of all static models in terms of area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and calibration. Dynamic landmark supermodels reached peak AUROCs between 0.741 and 0.747 at landmark 5. The Cox landmark supermodel had the worst AUROCs (≤ 0.731) and calibration up to landmark 7. Separate Fine-Gray models per landmark performed worst for later landmarks, when the number of patients at risk was low.

conclusionsCategorical and time-to-event approaches had similar performance in the static and dynamic settings, except Cox models. Ignoring competing risks caused problems for risk prediction in the time-to-event framework (Cox), but not in the categorical framework (logistic regression).

Indexed as

Central line–associated bloodstream infectionDynamic modelLogistic regressionRisk predictionSurvival analysis

Identifiers

PMID40691628
PMCPMC12278581

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.