Institution
University of Ioannina
Education•Ioannina, Greece•
About: University of Ioannina is a education organization based out in Ioannina, Greece. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Large Hadron Collider. The organization has 7654 authors who have published 20594 publications receiving 671560 citations. The organization is also known as: Panepistimio Ioanninon.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
TL;DR: Bayesian methodology offers a multitude of ways to present results from MTM models, as it enables a natural and easy estimation of all measures based on probabilities, ranks, or predictions.
2,337 citations
••
Public Health Research Institute1, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven2, Leiden University3, University of Oxford4, John Radcliffe Hospital5, Keele University6, Medical University of Vienna7, University Medical Center Utrecht8, University College Cork9, University of Pennsylvania10, University of Cologne11, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre12, University of Aberdeen13, RMIT University14, University of Manchester15, University of Amsterdam16, University of Ioannina17, Imperial College London18, Maastricht University Medical Centre19, Humboldt University of Berlin20
TL;DR: Proposed models for covid-19 are poorly reported, at high risk of bias, and their reported performance is probably optimistic, according to a review of published and preprint reports.
Abstract: Objective To review and appraise the validity and usefulness of published and preprint reports of prediction models for diagnosing coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) in patients with suspected infection, for prognosis of patients with covid-19, and for detecting people in the general population at increased risk of covid-19 infection or being admitted to hospital with the disease. Design Living systematic review and critical appraisal by the COVID-PRECISE (Precise Risk Estimation to optimise covid-19 Care for Infected or Suspected patients in diverse sEttings) group. Data sources PubMed and Embase through Ovid, up to 1 July 2020, supplemented with arXiv, medRxiv, and bioRxiv up to 5 May 2020. Study selection Studies that developed or validated a multivariable covid-19 related prediction model. Data extraction At least two authors independently extracted data using the CHARMS (critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modelling studies) checklist; risk of bias was assessed using PROBAST (prediction model risk of bias assessment tool). Results 37 421 titles were screened, and 169 studies describing 232 prediction models were included. The review identified seven models for identifying people at risk in the general population; 118 diagnostic models for detecting covid-19 (75 were based on medical imaging, 10 to diagnose disease severity); and 107 prognostic models for predicting mortality risk, progression to severe disease, intensive care unit admission, ventilation, intubation, or length of hospital stay. The most frequent types of predictors included in the covid-19 prediction models are vital signs, age, comorbidities, and image features. Flu-like symptoms are frequently predictive in diagnostic models, while sex, C reactive protein, and lymphocyte counts are frequent prognostic factors. Reported C index estimates from the strongest form of validation available per model ranged from 0.71 to 0.99 in prediction models for the general population, from 0.65 to more than 0.99 in diagnostic models, and from 0.54 to 0.99 in prognostic models. All models were rated at high or unclear risk of bias, mostly because of non-representative selection of control patients, exclusion of patients who had not experienced the event of interest by the end of the study, high risk of model overfitting, and unclear reporting. Many models did not include a description of the target population (n=27, 12%) or care setting (n=75, 32%), and only 11 (5%) were externally validated by a calibration plot. The Jehi diagnostic model and the 4C mortality score were identified as promising models. Conclusion Prediction models for covid-19 are quickly entering the academic literature to support medical decision making at a time when they are urgently needed. This review indicates that almost all pubished prediction models are poorly reported, and at high risk of bias such that their reported predictive performance is probably optimistic. However, we have identified two (one diagnostic and one prognostic) promising models that should soon be validated in multiple cohorts, preferably through collaborative efforts and data sharing to also allow an investigation of the stability and heterogeneity in their performance across populations and settings. Details on all reviewed models are publicly available at https://www.covprecise.org/. Methodological guidance as provided in this paper should be followed because unreliable predictions could cause more harm than benefit in guiding clinical decisions. Finally, prediction model authors should adhere to the TRIPOD (transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis) reporting guideline. Systematic review registration Protocol https://osf.io/ehc47/, registration https://osf.io/wy245. Readers’ note This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This version is update 3 of the original article published on 7 April 2020 (BMJ 2020;369:m1328). Previous updates can be found as data supplements (https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1328/related#datasupp). When citing this paper please consider adding the update number and date of access for clarity.
2,183 citations
••
TL;DR: A Bayesian-framework, multiple-treatments meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials to compare 15 antipsychotic drugs and placebo in the acute treatment of schizophrenia found all drugs were significantly more effective than placebo.
1,997 citations
••
TL;DR: Given the growing trend on the application of ML methods in cancer research, this work presents here the most recent publications that employ these techniques as an aim to model cancer risk or patient outcomes.
Abstract: Cancer has been characterized as a heterogeneous disease consisting of many different subtypes. The early diagnosis and prognosis of a cancer type have become a necessity in cancer research, as it can facilitate the subsequent clinical management of patients. The importance of classifying cancer patients into high or low risk groups has led many research teams, from the biomedical and the bioinformatics field, to study the application of machine learning (ML) methods. Therefore, these techniques have been utilized as an aim to model the progression and treatment of cancerous conditions. In addition, the ability of ML tools to detect key features from complex datasets reveals their importance. A variety of these techniques, including Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs), Bayesian Networks (BNs), Support Vector Machines (SVMs) and Decision Trees (DTs) have been widely applied in cancer research for the development of predictive models, resulting in effective and accurate decision making. Even though it is evident that the use of ML methods can improve our understanding of cancer progression, an appropriate level of validation is needed in order for these methods to be considered in the everyday clinical practice. In this work, we present a review of recent ML approaches employed in the modeling of cancer progression. The predictive models discussed here are based on various supervised ML techniques as well as on different input features and data samples. Given the growing trend on the application of ML methods in cancer research, we present here the most recent publications that employ these techniques as an aim to model cancer risk or patient outcomes.
1,991 citations
••
TL;DR: It is concluded that a systematic meta-analytic approach may assist in estimating population-wide effects of genetic risk factors in human disease.
Abstract: The rapid growth of human genetics creates countless opportunities for studies of disease association. Given the number of potentially identifiable genetic markers and the multitude of clinical outcomes to which these may be linked, the testing and validation of statistical hypotheses in genetic epidemiology is a task of unprecedented scale. Meta-analysis provides a quantitative approach for combining the results of various studies on the same topic, and for estimating and explaining their diversity. Here, we have evaluated by meta-analysis 370 studies addressing 36 genetic associations for various outcomes of disease. We show that significant between-study heterogeneity (diversity) is frequent, and that the results of the first study correlate only modestly with subsequent research on the same association. The first study often suggests a stronger genetic effect than is found by subsequent studies. Both bias and genuine population diversity might explain why early association studies tend to overestimate the disease protection or predisposition conferred by a genetic polymorphism. We conclude that a systematic meta-analytic approach may assist in estimating population-wide effects of genetic risk factors in human disease.
1,900 citations
Authors
Showing all 7724 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
John P. A. Ioannidis | 185 | 1311 | 193612 |
Kay-Tee Khaw | 174 | 1389 | 138782 |
Elio Riboli | 158 | 1136 | 110499 |
Mercouri G. Kanatzidis | 152 | 1854 | 113022 |
Dimitrios Trichopoulos | 135 | 818 | 84992 |
Gyorgy Vesztergombi | 133 | 1444 | 94821 |
Niki Saoulidou | 132 | 1065 | 81154 |
Apostolos Panagiotou | 132 | 1370 | 88647 |
Ioannis Evangelou | 131 | 1225 | 82178 |
Ioannis Papadopoulos | 129 | 1201 | 85576 |
Nikolaos Manthos | 129 | 1256 | 81865 |
Panagiotis Kokkas | 128 | 1234 | 81051 |
Costas Foudas | 128 | 1112 | 83048 |
Zoltan Szillasi | 128 | 1214 | 84392 |
Matthias Schröder | 126 | 1421 | 82990 |