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.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Comparing methods for handling missing data in electronic health records for dynamic risk prediction of central-line associated bloodstream infection.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- Electronic health record-derived care-exposure burden and central line-associated bloodstream infection among critically ill adults: a multi-source retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Challenges and Recommendations for Electronic Health Records Data Extraction and Preparation for Dynamic Prediction Modeling in Hospitalized Patients: Practical Guide and Tutorial.Journal of medical Internet research · 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
10 authors.
Funding
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
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.