Researcher profile

Karel G. M. Moons

Karel G. M. Moons contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 13 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
2works
0followers
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2021arXiv

Comparing methods addressing multi-collinearity when developing prediction models

Clinical prediction models are developed widely across medical disciplines. When predictors in such models are highly collinear, unexpected or spurious predictor-outcome associations may occur, thereby potentially reducing face-validity and explainability of the prediction model. Collinearity can be dealt with by exclusion of collinear predictors, but when there is no a priori motivation (besides collinearity) to include or exclude specific predictors, such an approach is arbitrary and possibly inappropriate. We compare different methods to address collinearity, including shrinkage, dimensionality reduction, and constrained optimization. The effectiveness of these methods is illustrated via simulations. In the conducted simulations, no effect of collinearity was observed on predictive outcomes. However, a negative effect of collinearity on the stability of predictor selection was found, affecting all compared methods, but in particular methods that perform strong predictor selection (e.g., Lasso).}

preprint2020arXiv

Decision Support in the Context of a Complex Decision Situation

The aim of a clinical decision support tool is to reduce the complexity of clinical decisions. However, when decision support tools are poorly implemented they may actually confuse physicians and complicate clinical care. This paper argues that information from decision support tools is often removed from the clinical context of the targeted decisions. Physicians largely depend on clinical context to handle the complexity of their day-to-day decisions. Clinical context enables them to take into account all ambiguous information and patient preferences. Decision support tools that provide analytic information to physicians, without its context, may then complicate the decision process of physicians. It is likely that the joint forces of physicians and technology will produce better decisions than either of them exclusively: after all, they do have different ways of dealing with the complexity of a decision and are thus complementary. Therefore, the future challenges of decision support do not only reside in the optimization of the predictive value of the underlying models and algorithms, but equally in the effective communication of information and its context to doctors.