IF 7 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Glen P Martin, Alexander Pate, Siân Bladon, Matthew Sperrin, Richard D Riley
{"title":"A decision-analytical perspective on incorporating multiple outcomes in the production of clinical prediction models: defining a taxonomy of risk estimands.","authors":"Glen P Martin, Alexander Pate, Siân Bladon, Matthew Sperrin, Richard D Riley","doi":"10.1186/s12916-025-03978-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinical prediction models (CPMs) estimate an individual's risk of current or future outcome events, using information available about the individual at the time of prediction. While most CPMs are developed to predict a single outcome event, many clinical decisions require considering the risks of multiple outcome events. For example, decision-making for anticoagulation therapy involves assessing an individual's risks of both blood clot and bleeding, while decision-making around interventions for multimorbidity prevention requires an understanding of the risks of developing multiple long-term conditions. However, determining when and how to incorporate multiple outcomes into CPMs remains challenging. This article aims to raise awareness of multiple outcome prediction and present clinical examples where such prediction is essential to help inform individual decision-making.</p><p><strong>Main text: </strong>A range of analytical methods are available to develop multiple-outcome CPMs, but there are frequent malapropisms and heterogeneity in terminology across this literature, making it difficult to identify/compare possible methods. Selecting the appropriate method should depend on the intended risk estimand-the type of predicted risks that we wish the CPM to estimate-but this is often not defined or reported. Using clinical examples and a decision-analytical perspective, we present a taxonomy of risk estimands to frame different clinical contexts requiring multiple-outcome CPMs. We outline four levels of risk estimands: (i) single-outcome risk, (ii) competing-outcome risk, (iii) composite-outcome risk, and (iv) risk of multiple outcome combinations. We demonstrate how a decision-analytical and utility-theory lens can help define the risk estimand for a given clinical scenario, based on the model's intended use.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Clearly defining and reporting the risk estimand is essential for all prediction model studies. A decision-analytical framework aids in selecting the most appropriate estimand for a given prediction task and in determining when and how to incorporate multiple outcomes into CPM development.</p>","PeriodicalId":9188,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medicine","volume":"23 1","pages":"142"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11887178/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-025-03978-3","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:临床预测模型(CPM临床预测模型(CPM)利用预测时个人的可用信息,估计个人当前或未来发生结果事件的风险。虽然大多数临床预测模型是为预测单一结果事件而开发的,但许多临床决策需要考虑多种结果事件的风险。例如,抗凝疗法的决策涉及评估个人的血栓和出血风险,而围绕多病预防干预的决策则需要了解患多种长期疾病的风险。然而,确定何时以及如何将多种结果纳入 CPM 仍然具有挑战性。本文旨在提高人们对多重结果预测的认识,并介绍一些临床实例,说明这种预测对帮助个人决策至关重要:主要内容:目前有一系列分析方法可用于开发多重结果 CPM,但这些文献中经常出现术语不当和术语不统一的情况,因此很难识别/比较可能的方法。选择适当的方法应取决于预期的风险估算对象--我们希望 CPM 估算的预测风险类型--但这往往没有定义或报告。利用临床实例和决策分析的视角,我们提出了一种风险估算对象分类法,用于构建需要多结果 CPM 的不同临床环境。我们概述了风险估计的四个层次:(i) 单一结果风险,(ii) 竞争结果风险,(iii) 复合结果风险,以及 (iv) 多重结果组合风险。我们展示了如何从决策分析和效用理论的角度,根据模型的预期用途,帮助定义特定临床情况下的风险估计值:明确定义和报告风险估计值对所有预测模型研究都至关重要。决策分析框架有助于为特定预测任务选择最合适的估计因子,并确定何时以及如何将多种结果纳入 CPM 开发。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A decision-analytical perspective on incorporating multiple outcomes in the production of clinical prediction models: defining a taxonomy of risk estimands.

Background: Clinical prediction models (CPMs) estimate an individual's risk of current or future outcome events, using information available about the individual at the time of prediction. While most CPMs are developed to predict a single outcome event, many clinical decisions require considering the risks of multiple outcome events. For example, decision-making for anticoagulation therapy involves assessing an individual's risks of both blood clot and bleeding, while decision-making around interventions for multimorbidity prevention requires an understanding of the risks of developing multiple long-term conditions. However, determining when and how to incorporate multiple outcomes into CPMs remains challenging. This article aims to raise awareness of multiple outcome prediction and present clinical examples where such prediction is essential to help inform individual decision-making.

Main text: A range of analytical methods are available to develop multiple-outcome CPMs, but there are frequent malapropisms and heterogeneity in terminology across this literature, making it difficult to identify/compare possible methods. Selecting the appropriate method should depend on the intended risk estimand-the type of predicted risks that we wish the CPM to estimate-but this is often not defined or reported. Using clinical examples and a decision-analytical perspective, we present a taxonomy of risk estimands to frame different clinical contexts requiring multiple-outcome CPMs. We outline four levels of risk estimands: (i) single-outcome risk, (ii) competing-outcome risk, (iii) composite-outcome risk, and (iv) risk of multiple outcome combinations. We demonstrate how a decision-analytical and utility-theory lens can help define the risk estimand for a given clinical scenario, based on the model's intended use.

Conclusions: Clearly defining and reporting the risk estimand is essential for all prediction model studies. A decision-analytical framework aids in selecting the most appropriate estimand for a given prediction task and in determining when and how to incorporate multiple outcomes into CPM development.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Medicine
BMC Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
13.10
自引率
1.10%
发文量
435
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medicine is an open access, transparent peer-reviewed general medical journal. It is the flagship journal of the BMC series and publishes outstanding and influential research in various areas including clinical practice, translational medicine, medical and health advances, public health, global health, policy, and general topics of interest to the biomedical and sociomedical professional communities. In addition to research articles, the journal also publishes stimulating debates, reviews, unique forum articles, and concise tutorials. All articles published in BMC Medicine are included in various databases such as Biological Abstracts, BIOSIS, CAS, Citebase, Current contents, DOAJ, Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Science Citation Index Expanded, OAIster, SCImago, Scopus, SOCOLAR, and Zetoc.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信