ArticleJournal of occupational rehabilitation2026
Explainable Prediction of Prolonged Work Disability After Occupational Injury and Disease: Temporal Validation and Sex-Specific Performance.
Article in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2026. 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
purposeTo compare explainable models for predicting prolonged work absence after occupational injury or disease and assess temporal calibration and sex-specific performance.
methodsWe analysed 182,051 closed work-absence episodes recorded in Spain during 2022-2025. Prolonged absence was defined as ≥101 days. Penalised logistic regression, Random Forest, XGBoost and LightGBM were fitted on 2022-2023, selected in 2024 and refitted on 2022-2024. The previously examined 2025 cohort was reevaluated without using it for fitting or selection. Discrimination, calibration, Brier score and operating characteristics were assessed, with 2,000 paired episode bootstrap resamples. Additional analyses considered sex, alternative duration thresholds and nonlinear age and tenure; SHAP described predictor contributions.
resultsThe 2025 cohort included 45,773 episodes and 3,756 outcomes (8.2%). LightGBM had the highest ROC-AUC (0.829; 95% CI 0.823-0.836), logistic regression the highest PR-AUC (0.389; 0.373-0.406), and Random Forest the lowest Brier score (0.063). XGBoost had the highest F1-score (0.342). Sex contrasts did not establish equivalence. Injury description, body region, accident mechanism, age and tenure were the leading XGBoost SHAP contributors. Selection of closed episodes limited interpretation, particularly at 365 days.
conclusionNo machine-learning model was uniformly superior to penalised logistic regression. Calibration, operational trade-offs, external validation and prospective impact evaluation remain important before implementation; availability of predictors at notification must also be verified.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42789202What 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.