Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41191908›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025

Beyond Comparing Machine Learning and Logistic Regression in Clinical Prediction Modelling: Shifting from Model Debate to Data Quality.

Yanan Hu, Xin Zhang, Valerie Slavin, Yitayeh Belsti, Sofonyas Abebaw Tiruneh, Emily Callander, Joanne Enticott

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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. Cited by 29 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
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

7 authors.

Yanan HuMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1794-7789
Xin ZhangDepartment of Electrical and Computer Systems Engineering, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0675-6891
Valerie SlavinGold Coast Hospital and Health Service, Gold Coast Hospital, Gold Coast, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7688-2498
Yitayeh BelstiMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8984-1495
Sofonyas Abebaw TirunehMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5867-5105
Emily CallanderMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7233-6804
Joanne EnticottMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4480-5690

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The rapid uptake of supervised machine learning (ML) in clinical prediction modelling, particularly for binary outcomes based on tabular data, has sparked debate about its comparative advantage over traditional statistical logistic regression. Although ML has demonstrated superiority in unstructured data domains, its performance gains in structured, tabular clinical datasets remain inconsistent and context dependent. This viewpoint synthesizes recent comparative studies and simulation findings to argue that there is no universal best modelling approach. Model performance depends heavily on dataset characteristics (eg, linearity, sample size, number of candidate predictors, minority class proportion) and data quality (eg, completeness, accuracy). Consequently, we argue that efforts to improve data quality, not model complexity, are more likely to enhance the reliability and real-world utility of clinical prediction models.

Indexed as

Data AccuracyMachine LearningHumansLogistic Modelsbinary classficationclinical dataclinical prediction modelsdata qualitylogistic regressionmachine learning

Identifiers

PMID41191908
PMCPMC12631085

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.