ArticleNPJ digital medicine2025
The hidden risk of round numbers and sharp thresholds in clinical practice.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical decision-making often simplifies continuous risk data into discrete levels using round-number thresholds. These simplifications can distort risk assessments. To systematically uncover these distortions, we develop an interpretable machine learning model that identifies anomalies caused by threshold-based practices. Through simulations, real-world data, and longitudinal studies, we demonstrate how round-number thresholds can lead to discontinuities and counter-causal paradoxes in mortality risk. Despite advances in medicine, these anomalies persist, underscoring the need for dynamic and nuanced risk assessment methods in healthcare. Our findings suggest continuous reassessment of clinical protocols, especially in critical settings like intensive care, to improve patient outcomes by aligning thresholds with the continuous nature of risk.
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.