In patients with acute ischemic stroke caused by a proximal intracranial occlusion of the anterior circulation, intraarterial treatment administered within 6 hours after stroke onset was effective and safe. (Funded by the Dutch Heart Foundation and others; MR CLEAN Netherlands Trial Registry number, NTR1804, and Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN10888758.).

Preoperative chemoradiotherapy improved survival among patients with potentially curable esophageal or esophagogastric-junction cancer. The regimen was associated with acceptable adverse-event rates. (Funded by the Dutch Cancer Foundation [KWF Kankerbestrijding]; Netherlands Trial Register number, NTR487.).

The TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis) Statement includes a 22-item checklist, which aims to improve the reporting of studies developing, validating, or updating a prediction model, whether for diagnostic or prognostic purposes. The TRIPOD Statement aims to improve the transparency of the reporting of a prediction model study regardless of the study methods used. This explanation and elaboration document describes the rationale; clarifies the meaning of each item; and discusses why transparent reporting is important, with a view to assessing risk of bias and clinical usefulness of the prediction model. Each checklist item of the TRIPOD Statement is explained in detail and accompanied by published examples of good reporting. The document also provides a valuable reference of issues to consider when designing, conducting, and analyzing prediction model studies. To aid the editorial process and help peer reviewers and, ultimately, readers and systematic reviewers of prediction model studies, it is recommended that authors include a completed checklist in their submission. The TRIPOD checklist can also be downloaded from www.tripod-statement.org.

No abstract

Clinical prediction models provide risk estimates for the presence of disease (diagnosis) or an event in the future course of disease (prognosis) for individual patients. Although publications that present and evaluate such models are becoming more frequent, the methodology is often suboptimal. We propose that seven steps should be considered in developing prediction models: (i) consideration of the research question and initial data inspection; (ii) coding of predictors; (iii) model specification; (iv) model estimation; (v) evaluation of model performance; (vi) internal validation; and (vii) model presentation. The validity of a prediction model is ideally assessed in fully independent data, where we propose four key measures to evaluate model performance: calibration-in-the-large, or the model intercept (A); calibration slope (B); discrimination, with a concordance statistic (C); and clinical usefulness, with decision-curve analysis (D). As an application, we develop and validate prediction models for 30-day mortality in patients with an acute myocardial infarction. This illustrates the usefulness of the proposed framework to strengthen the methodological rigour and quality for prediction models in cardiovascular research.

A concerted effort to tackle the global health problem posed by traumatic brain injury (TBI) is long overdue. TBI is a public health challenge of vast, but insufficiently recognised, proportions. Worldwide, more than 50 million people have a TBI each year, and it is estimated that about half the world's population will have one or more TBIs over their lifetime. TBI is the leading cause of mortality in young adults and a major cause of death and disability across all ages in all countries, with a disproportionate burden of disability and death occurring in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). It has been estimated that TBI costs the global economy approximately $US400 billion annually. Deficiencies in prevention, care, and research urgently need to be addressed to reduce the huge burden and societal costs of TBI. This Commission highlights priorities and provides expert recommendations for all stakeholders—policy makers, funders, health-care professionals, researchers, and patient representatives—on clinical and research strategies to reduce this growing public health problem and improve the lives of people with TBI.Additional co-authors: Endre Czeiter, Marek Czosnyka, Ramon Diaz-Arrastia, Jens P Dreier, Ann-Christine Duhaime, Ari Ercole, Thomas A van Essen, Valery L Feigin, Guoyi Gao, Joseph Giacino, Laura E Gonzalez-Lara, Russell L Gruen, Deepak Gupta, Jed A Hartings, Sean Hill, Ji-yao Jiang, Naomi Ketharanathan, Erwin J O Kompanje, Linda Lanyon, Steven Laureys, Fiona Lecky, Harvey Levin, Hester F Lingsma, Marc Maegele, Marek Majdan, Geoffrey Manley, Jill Marsteller, Luciana Mascia, Charles McFadyen, Stefania Mondello, Virginia Newcombe, Aarno Palotie, Paul M Parizel, Wilco Peul, James Piercy, Suzanne Polinder, Louis Puybasset, Todd E Rasmussen, Rolf Rossaint, Peter Smielewski, Jeannette Söderberg, Simon J Stanworth, Murray B Stein, Nicole von Steinbüchel, William Stewart, Ewout W Steyerberg, Nino Stocchetti, Anneliese Synnot, Braden Te Ao, Olli Tenovuo, Alice Theadom, Dick Tibboel, Walter Videtta, Kevin K W Wang, W Huw Williams, Kristine Yaffe for the InTBIR Participants and Investigator

Objective: To compare performance of logistic regression (LR) with machine learning (ML) for clinical prediction modeling. Study design and setting: We conducted a Medline literature search (1/2016 to 8/2017), and extracted comparisons between LR and ML models for binary outcomes. Results: We included 71 out of 927 studies. The median sample size was 1250 (range 72-3,994,872), with 19 predictors considered (range 5-563) and 8 events per predictor (range 0.3-6,697). The most common ML methods were classification trees (30 studies), random forests (28), artificial neural networks (26), and support vector machines (24). Sixty-four (90%) studies used the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) to assess discrimination. Calibration was not addressed in 56 (79%) studies. We identified 282 comparisons between a LR and ML model (AUC range, 0.52-0.99). For 145 comparisons at low risk of bias, the difference in logit(AUC) between LR and ML was 0.00 (95% confidence interval,-0.18 to 0.18). For 137 comparisons at high risk of bias, logit(AUC) was 0.34 (0.20 to 0.47) higher for ML. Conclusions: We found no evidence of superior performance of ML over LR for clinical prediction modeling, but improvements in methodology and reporting are needed for studies that compare modeling algorithms.

Many decisions in medicine involve trade-offs, such as between diagnosing patients with disease versus unnecessary additional testing for those who are healthy. Net benefit is an increasingly reported decision analytic measure that puts benefits and harms on the same scale. This is achieved by specifying an exchange rate, a clinical judgment of the relative value of benefits (such as detecting a cancer) and harms (such as unnecessary biopsy) associated with models, markers, and tests. The exchange rate can be derived by asking simple questions, such as the maximum number of patients a doctor would recommend for biopsy to find one cancer. As the answers to these sorts of questions are subjective, it is possible to plot net benefit for a range of reasonable exchange rates in a “decision curve.” For clinical prediction models, the exchange rate is related to the probability threshold to determine whether a patient is classified as being positive or negative for a disease. Net benefit is useful for determining whether basing clinical decisions on a model, marker, or test would do more good than harm. This is in contrast to traditional measures such as sensitivity, specificity, or area under the curve, which are statistical abstractions not directly informative about clinical value. Recent years have seen an increase in practical applications of net benefit analysis to research data. This is a welcome development, since decision analytic techniques are of particular value when the purpose of a model, marker, or test is to help doctors make better clinical decisions.