ArticleDiagnostic and prognostic research2026
The continuous net benefit: assessing the clinical utility of prediction models when informing a continuum of decisions.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Development and validation of a nomogram for predicting chemotherapy-induced liver injury in breast cancer patients.Translational cancer research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
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
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.