Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41703610›Full record

ArticleDiagnostic and prognostic research2026

The continuous net benefit: assessing the clinical utility of prediction models when informing a continuum of decisions.

Jose Benitez-Aurioles, Laure Wynants, Niels Peek, Patrick Goodley, Philip Crosbie, Matthew Sperrin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostic and prognostic research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

6 authors.

Jose Benitez-AuriolesCentre for Health Informatics, University of Manchester, Vaughan House, Portsmouth Street, Manchester, M13 9GB, UK. jose.benitez-aurioles@postgrad.manchester.ac.uk.
Laure WynantsDepartment of Epidemiology, Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Niels PeekTHIS Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Patrick GoodleyDivision of Immunology, Immunity to Infection & Respiratory Medicine, School of Biological Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Philip CrosbieDivision of Immunology, Immunity to Infection & Respiratory Medicine, School of Biological Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Matthew SperrinCentre for Health Informatics, University of Manchester, Vaughan House, Portsmouth Street, Manchester, M13 9GB, UK.

Funding

HDRUK 218529/Z/19/ZNational Institute for Health and Care Research NIHR203308UKRI AI programme, and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council EP/Y028856/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe net benefit and decision curve analysis are increasingly being used to assess the clinical utility of prognostic models. This metric assesses the value added by a model’s predictions when individuals are treated differently according to whether they are over or under a chosen threshold. Although such ‘treat or not’ decisions are common, prognostic models are also often used to tailor and personalise the care of patients, which implicitly involves the consideration of multiple interventions at different risk thresholds. We aim to extend decision curve analysis to estimate the net benefit of a model over multiple thresholds.

methodsWe take a weighted area under a rescaled version of the net benefit curve, deriving the continuous net benefit. In addition to the consideration of a continuum of interventions, we also show how the continuous net benefit can be used to evaluate single treatments in populations with a range of optimal thresholds, due to individual variations in expected treatment benefit or harm, highlighting limitations of current proposed methods that calculate the area under the decision curve. We propose this not as a substitute for decision curves, but as a complementary evaluation metric, in lieu of single-threshold point estimates.

resultsWe showcase this metric through two examples of model validation in cardiovascular preventive care. The continuous net benefit brought additional insight over point estimates when comparing models over a range of decisions.

conclusionsThe continuous net benefit informs those looking to validate clinical prediction models of their clinical utility, and helps decision makers understand their usefulness, improving their viability towards implementation.

Indexed as

Clinical prediction modelsDecision curve analysisNet benefitPrognosis

Identifiers

PMID41703610
PMCPMC12911006

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.