Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42241340›Full record

ReviewJournal of postgraduate medicine2026

7. Developing high-performance prediction models for medical outcomes.

A Indrayan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of postgraduate medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

A IndrayanDepartment of Clinical Research, Max Healthcare, New Delhi, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

abstractA prediction model can be considered to have high performance when it gives correct prediction in at least 90% cases for qualitative outcome and at least 90% differences between the observed and predicted values are within clinical tolerance in the case of quantitative outcome. A model with an accuracy between 80% and 90% can be possibly tolerated in some situations, but any model with less accuracy implies an unacceptably large error in clinical applications. Most of the models developed so far do not meet these criteria. Moreover, prediction of the unknown is confused with classification of the known. Developing high-performance models requires a lot of extra efforts that are rarely seen in the present endeavors. For this, it is imperative that a large number of known and suspected predictors are considered and complexity in terms of interactions and nonlinearity is accepted. Models with many predictors is not a big limitation now because of wide availability of enormous computing power. More rigorous validation is needed than done now. Artificial intelligence-based models can be linked to the relevant literature so that they continuously update with the new development under the data science paradigm. This article highlights the problems with many of the existing models and describes steps to develop a high-performance model for medical outcomes. Many of the advices we give are rarely available in the literature.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalArtificial IntelligenceHumansPrediction AlgorithmsPredictive Learning ModelsData sciencenegative predictivityP-indexpositive predictivityprediction modelsvalidation

Identifiers

PMID42241340
PMCPMC13390955

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.