ArticleMethods of information in medicine2022
Evaluating Prediction of Continuous Clinical Values: A Glucose Case Study.
Article in Methods of information in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Loss function influence on hyperparameter optimization for observational healthcare prediction models.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026Article
- Validating medical digital twins for clinical decision support: beyond predictive accuracy.JAMIA open · 2026Review
- A multiobjective optimization approach to data assimilation for complex biological systems with sparse data.Mathematical biosciences · 2026Article
- Translating Nursing Data into Computational Metrics: An Evaluation Guideline for Inpatient Intravenous and Subcutaneous Insulin Management.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2024Article
- A simple modeling framework for prediction in the human glucose-insulin system.Chaos (Woodbury, N.Y.) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIt would be useful to be able to assess the utility of predictive models of continuous values before clinical trials are performed.
objectiveThe aim of the study is to compare metrics to assess the potential clinical utility of models that produce continuous value forecasts.
methodsWe ran a set of data assimilation forecast algorithms on time series of glucose measurements from neurological intensive care unit patients. We evaluated the forecasts using four sets of metrics: glucose root mean square (RMS) error, a set of metrics on a transformed glucose value, the estimated effect on clinical care based on an insulin guideline, and a glucose measurement error grid (Parkes grid). We assessed correlation among the metrics and created a set of factor models.
resultsThe metrics generally correlated with each other, but those that estimated the effect on clinical care correlated with others the least and were generally associated with their own independent factors. The other metrics appeared to separate into those that emphasized errors in low glucose versus errors in high glucose. The Parkes grid was well correlated with the transformed glucose but not the estimation of clinical care. DISCUSSION: Our results indicate that we need to be careful before we assume that commonly used metrics like RMS error in raw glucose or even metrics like the Parkes grid that are designed to measure importance of differences will correlate well with actual effect on clinical care processes. A combination of metrics appeared to explain the most variance between cases. As prediction algorithms move into practice, it will be important to measure actual effects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.