Search PubMed⌕ Search

subject

Prediction

Prediction: explore 3 source-linked works published from 2026 to 2026, with original documents and citations.

This collection is a preview while coverage and quality are evaluated.

Search within this collection

Coverage and selection

Includes records with this source-supplied label or an explicit phrase match in their metadata. Matches indicate a mention, not proof that a paper uses a method or tests a material. Source versions are consolidated by DOI.

Sources: pubmed. Collection updated 2026-09-17. Counts describe this index, not the complete source archives.

Predictive evolutionary genomics: principles, validation, and practice.

Climate change and habitat loss are driving rapid evolutionary responses in populations world-wide, which creates an urgent need for evolutionary forecasting in conservation and agriculture. Such forecasting can be categorized into three time scales: trait-based models that use multivariate quantitative genetic equations to project correlated phenotypic responses up to c. 20 generations, allele-based analyses that model allele frequency dynamics up to 100 generations, and composite adaptation scores that aggregate many small effects to yield predictions across longer horizons. However, these approaches have remained largely disconnected. Here, we present a Bayesian framework that integrates these three complementary approaches for evolutionary prediction. Our framework combines genomic, phenotypic, and environmental data to yield probabilistic predictions with explicit uncertainty. We show how predictive evolutionary forecasts can be validated with experimental evolution, field experimentation, historical specimens, and reciprocal transplants. These validated forecasts can help advance conservation and agricultural programmes by helping predict which populations are at risk of future extinction, optimizing breeding programmes for future climates, and planning ecosystem management under environmental change. By supporting a shift towards more predictive approaches in evolutionary biology, this framework may help improve our ability to manage biodiversity and food security in a changing world.

Genomics↗

Systemic biomarkers of treatment response to methotrexate in people with painful knee osteoarthritis: A biological substudy of the PROMOTE randomised controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: Stratification of therapeutic responses may help identify efficacious therapies for osteoarthritis (OA). In the PROMOTE randomised trial, participants with elevated baseline high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) showed greater pain reduction after methotrexate treatment. We set out to interrogate a broader panel of serum/plasma inflammatory response markers relevant to methotrexate actions as potential biomarkers of therapeutic effect. Our objectives were to: (i) characterize changes in these systemic markers during methotrexate treatment; determine whether (ii) baseline levels or (iii) changes in any marker during treatment were associated with treatment response; and (iv) compare these findings with the more established clinical inflammatory marker, hs-CRP. DESIGN: Plasma/serum samples from participants in PROMOTE's biological substudy were analysed for 35 inflammatory markers at baseline (pre-treatment) and at 6-months (post-treatment), by MesoScale V-plex multiplex assay. Those with paired biological and clinical data at both baseline and 6-months were included in the substudy analysis set. Relationships between markers and overall data structure were assessed by Pearson correlation and Principal Component analysis. Associations between markers (baseline levels or change over time) and change in average knee pain severity in past week (numerical rating scale, NRS) were evaluated by univariable linear regression, adjusting for baseline age, sex, and body mass index. Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) regression with bootstrap resampling enabled marker selection. Benjamini-Hochberg correction adjusted for multiple testing (Padj). RESULTS: 87 participants with paired blood marker and clinical data were eligible for substudy analysis. 18/35 markers were quantifiable and analysed. Systemic IL-8 and TNF-α levels decreased (Padj=0.015, 0.048 respectively) while IL-15 increased (Padj=0.033) with methotrexate treatment over 6-months. Analysing within this active treatment randomised arm, higher baseline IFN-γ was associated with greater reduction in NRS pain change (0.66 [0.01, 1.31], P=0.047), as was decreasing TNF-α over 6-months (2.25 [0.00, 4.5], P=0.049). LASSO identified higher IFN-γ, lower plasma IL-15 and IL-16, and younger age as the most important baseline predictors of pain improvement. hs-CRP was highly selected by LASSO for treatment response in both arms. In a secondary univariate treatment arm-by-biomarker interaction analysis, of the 19 markers, only hs-CRP showed consistent effects in adjusted models (at baseline, coeffic. 2.34 [0.53, 4.15], P=0.001; change over 6-months, (0.36 [0.06, 0.66], P=0.018). CONCLUSIONS: Blood measurement of IFN-γ, TNF-α, IL-15 and IL-16 as well as hs-CRP could act as potential markers to stratify the treatment response by average knee pain to methotrexate in knee osteoarthritis.

Humans↗

Externally validated risk prediction models for gestational diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Risk prediction models for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) offer potential for early identification and targeted prevention. External validation is crucial to assess model performance across diverse populations. Despite the availability of numerous GDM prediction models, limited evidence exists on their external validation frequency, methodological quality, and clinical applicability. This systematic review evaluated externally validated GDM prediction models, focusing on methodological rigor, reporting standards, and clinical relevance to inform future research and implementation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Databases including Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Emcare, and CINAHL were searched up to May 1, 2025. Studies reporting external validation of GDM risk prediction models were included. Two reviewers independently screened studies. Data were extracted using the CHARMS framework, and risk of bias and applicability were assessed using PROBAST+AI. The study protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD420251125758). RESULTS: Twenty-six studies validated 33 models, with validation sample sizes ranging from 50 to 75 161. Over half used the IADPSG criteria to define GDM. Discrimination metrics were commonly reported, but calibration, overall performance, and clinical utility were often lacking. Meta-analysis was feasible for only four models: Teede et al., Nanda et al., Naylor et al., and Van Leeuwen et al., each showing fair discrimination. The Teede et al. model was the most widely validated, with 11 external validations across six continents and a pooled AUC of 0.72 (95% CI: 0.67-0.76). Despite fewer validations, the Nanda et al. model achieved the highest pooled discrimination (5 validations; pooled AUC 0.77, 95% CI: 0.74-0.80). The Naylor et al. and van Leeuwen et al. models also underwent meta-analysis, as sufficient external validation studies were available to support comparative performance assessment. Notably, 69.23% of studies had a high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: While many models showed acceptable predictive performance, most validations were methodologically weak. Future studies should follow best-practice guidelines and promote scalable validation strategies, such as algorithm sharing, to enhance clinical utility.

Humans↗
Compare source metadata on this page

These are bibliographic comparisons, not experimental rankings. Follow the original document for methods and conditions.