Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Background Late-stage cancer incidence is being considered as an earlier endpoint in cancer-screening trials, but its trial-level association with cancer-specific mortality may depend on evidence selection and endpoint harmonization. We evaluated the robustness of this association to source-verified additions. Methods We reconstructed the PubMed corpus underlying a 41-comparison review. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview was used only to prioritize reports for blinded human reassessment. Reviewers determined eligibility, linked reports from the same trial, harmonized endpoints, and verified comparison-level data. We recalculated unweighted Pearson correlations overall and by cancer type after adding earliest-compatible trial comparisons. Results Among 1209 candidate records, 996 PDFs were assessed. Thirty-three reports absent from the source review were prioritized; 26 were eligible, representing 18 trials, and 8 provided compatible comparisons. Adding these comparisons increased the dataset from 41 to 49 and attenuated the overall correlation from 0.73 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.55 to 0.85) to 0.59 (95% CI = 0.37 to 0.75). Updated correlations were 0.49 (95% CI = -0.26 to 0.87) for breast, -0.23 (95% CI = -0.71 to 0.40) for colorectal, and 0.83 (95% CI = 0.54 to 0.95) for lung cancer. One sparse-event comparison influenced the colorectal estimate. Conclusions The overall association was sensitive to evidence composition, and cancer-specific stability varied. Late-stage incidence should be evaluated by cancer type and with prespecified sensitivity analyses for evidence selection and endpoint definitions. Model-assisted prioritization cannot replace human eligibility review, trial reconciliation, and source verification.

Objectives To evaluate whether access to a certified large language model (LLM)-based clinical decision support system improves physician diagnostic performance in rheumatology compared with conventional diagnostic resources alone. Methods In this multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial, 82 physicians from seven hospitals in two countries were randomised 1:1 to conventional diagnostic resources plus Prof. Valmed or conventional resources alone. Participants assessed three rheumatology vignettes before and after assistance. The primary outcome was top-1 diagnostic accuracy. Secondary outcomes included top-3 accuracy, diagnostic reasoning, confidence, case-processing time and perceived support quality. Results Top-1 accuracy increased from 22.2% to 33.3% in the intervention group and from 23.3% to 35.0% in the control group, with no between-group difference in improvement (adjusted OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.19; p=0.979). Differences in top-3 accuracy, diagnostic reasoning and confidence were also not significant. Assisted case-processing time was substantially shorter with LLM support (94 vs 206 s; adjusted mean difference -112 s, 95% CI -141 to -83; p<0.001). Information timeliness and perceived diagnostic support quality were rated significantly higher in the intervention group. Exploratory analyses showed persistent overconfidence and substantial AI over-reliance. Conclusions Certified LLM-based diagnostic support did not improve diagnostic accuracy compared with conventional resources, but substantially reduced case-processing time and improved perceived support quality. These findings suggest potential workflow benefits while highlighting overconfidence and over-reliance as important safety considerations.

Objectives To analyse the long-term effects of a cruciate ligament (CL) injury on health and socioeconomic outcomes. Methods We used a comprehensive national injury insurance database to identify CL injuries occurring in New Zealand between 2009 and 2022, and employed a doubly robust staggered difference-in-differences research design to identify the effects of these injuries on outcomes up to 10 years after injury. The outcomes of interest were healthcare use (hospitalisations, emergency department visits, medications, knee replacement surgery for osteoarthritis), associated healthcare costs, and labour market outcomes (employment rates, income, and government benefit payments). Results We identified 61 344 CL injuries for inclusion in the analysis. Over 10-year follow-up, a CL injury resulted in increased healthcare use (0.6 more hospitalizations [95%CI 0.4 to 0.7], 1.7 more days spent in hospital [95%CI 1.3 to 2.1], 0.4 more emergency department visits [95%CI 0.3 to 0.6], 2.5 more outpatient visits [95%CI 1.8 to 3.2], and 4.7 more medications dispensed [95%CI -1.8 to 11.2]) and public healthcare costs ($7 537; 95%CI 5 888 to 9 186), reduced income (-$6 060; 95%CI -11 644 to -475), and increased benefit payments ($1 152; 95%CI 542 to 1 761). Conclusion CL injuries have long-term impacts on healthcare use and socioeconomic outcomes. Strategies to reduce the incidence of CL injuries have the potential to realise large health and economic benefits.

IMPORTANCE: A recent meta-analysis showed that chemoimmunotherapy was associated with improved overall survival (OS) compared with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) monotherapy for programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumor proportion score (TPS) [&ge;] 50% advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, whether this benefit reflects chemotherapy effect or ICI heterogeneity remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To reassess the survival benefit of adding chemotherapy to ICI monotherapy using agent-stratified comparisons anchored to chemotherapy. DATA SOURCES: The 24 phase 3 randomized clinical trials included in the original meta-analysis (search date, August 3, 2025). DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Hazard ratios (HRs) for OS and progression-free survival (PFS) were extracted from each trial in the original meta-analysis. Two analytic frameworks were used: within-agent comparisons (same ICI in both chemoimmunotherapy and monotherapy) and across-agent comparisons (ICI in one treatment strategy only). For within-agent comparisons, a two-stage random-effects meta-analysis was conducted. In stage 1, ICI-specific HRs for chemoimmunotherapy and ICI monotherapy versus chemotherapy were pooled and their ratio was calculated (RHR = HRchemoimmuno/HRmono; RHR < 1 favors chemoimmunotherapy). The RHRs were pooled in stage 2. For across-agent comparisons, RHR was derived from pooled HRs by treatment strategy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Endpoints were OS and PFS. RESULTS: In within-agent comparisons (4 ICIs; 13 trials; N = 3252), pooled RHR was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.78-1.13; P = .48; I2 = 0.0%) for OS and 0.85 (95% CI, 0.68-1.06; P = .14; I2 = 0.0%) for PFS. In across-agent comparisons (7 ICIs; 11 trials; N = 2231), RHR favored chemoimmunotherapy for OS (0.68; 95% CI, 0.50-0.92; P = .01) and PFS (0.46; 95% CI, 0.37-0.58; P < .001). In a sensitivity analysis restricted to trials of NCCN-recommended regimens, pooled RHR was 1.02 (95% CI, 0.81-1.28; P = .87) for OS. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In the within-agent comparisons, adding chemotherapy to ICI monotherapy did not improve OS or PFS in patients with PD-L1 TPS [&ge;] 50% advanced NSCLC. The benefit in the original meta-analysis appears driven by across-ICI heterogeneity. These findings are consistent with ICI monotherapy as a standard first-line option and underscore the need for agent-level stratification in across-trial comparisons.

We propose two new tests to detect drug effects (DE) in trials of one to very few patients followed during two periods (before and after initiation of a treatment). Both methods use longitudinal natural history data to inform the estimation of each patient's DE. The first method uses a non linear mixed effect model (NLMEM) reflecting an expected natural history with a hypothetical drug effect, to estimate the Conditional Distribution of the Drug Effect (CDDE). The second method trains a Pareto Depth Analysis (PDA) algorithm, a machine learning based approach based on outlier detection, that we implement using data simulated under the NLMEM. We evaluated the two tests with a simulation study. We used data from the PROSPAX study in Autosomal Recessive Cerebellar Ataxias (ARCAs, to derive a NLMEM for the Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia score. The CDDE method provided controlled type I error and, in some scenarios, adequate corrected power, though sensitivity analyses showed vulnerability to misspecification. The PDA method demonstrated lower statistical power except with high score precision. These results highlight different strategies for quantifying treatment effects in ultra rare, patient' specific trials. They can inform methodological design for future ARCA precision therapies.

Background. Routine service databases are attractive sources of training labels for clinical prediction models, but the processes that write those labels are rarely audited before the labels are used. In a deployed community cognitive-screening programme, we audited the routine cognitive-status label, built a matrix of twenty-four model arms over the same patients under a specialist reference standard, and measured what each supervision choice bought or cost. Methods. The study cohort is the 672 individuals whose cognitive status was recorded by a titled (attending-or-above) physician, that record being the reference standard; after holding out one institution entirely, a development panel of 642 individuals at 38 institutions. The routine cognitive-status label these individuals also carry was first audited at the operator level: for each data-entry account we counted diagnoses entered and the proportion recording any impairment, and tested a competing bulk-timestamp explanation. Twenty-four arms span the supervision choices such a programme faces: an incumbent 21-variable logistic regression; local language models (Qwen2.5-1.5B/3B, Qwen3-4B/8B) zero-shot, with chain-of-thought, fine-tuned on physician labels, on routine labels with and without decontamination, or on a proxy scale-band task; preference-optimised (DPO) and reinforcement-trained (GRPO) variants; a proprietary frontier model queried zero-shot; and knowledge distillation of that frontier model into the regression and into the local 4B, using 943 teacher-labelled records from the programme's unlabelled pool. All arms are scored out-of-fold under one five-fold split grouped on registry-resolved institution clusters (no cluster spans a fold); paired contrasts use a 2,000-draw cluster bootstrap. Results. 181 operator accounts (each entering at least 100 diagnoses with zero recorded impairments) account for 45,315 rows - 40.5% of the outcome column; recorded impairment falls monotonically with account volume (15.7% for 1-9 rows to 0.7% for 500-999); a bulk-timestamp explanation was tested and refuted, identifying the write-time column as a migration artefact. Under the specialist standard, no locally fine-tuned arm beat the incumbent regression (AUROC 0.926): physician-label SFT reached 0.924 (4B), DPO 0.881, and GRPO 0.789; the pre-registered two-stage proxy-then-RL recipe was worse than its single-stage contaminated baseline (-0.030, 95% CI -0.077 to -0.004). Chain-of-thought reduced discrimination at every size (-0.072, -0.080, -0.041 at 1.5B/3B/4B; -0.012, n.s., at 8B). The frontier model scored 0.932 (vs. regression +0.007, n.s.). The distilled 4B reached 0.940 - above the incumbent (+0.014, 0.004 to 0.031) and above its own teacher (+0.008, 0.001 to 0.017) - with near-teacher calibration; it reached the teacher's level by 50 teacher labels and changed little beyond 200. Conclusions. The audit and the arm matrix support one deployment recipe: audit the routine label at the operator level before training on it; do not expect fine-tuning, preference optimisation, or reinforcement learning on a few hundred specialist cases to beat a well-calibrated regression; and if a frontier model is available but undeployable, spend a bounded number of queries on it as a labelling instrument and distil. A companion paper uses these frozen predictions to quantify how evaluation design choices compare with model choice.

Background: Systematic reviews of clinical prediction models increasingly include studies using artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) methods alongside traditional multivariable regression approaches. A previously published Excel tool enabled standardised data extraction using the CHARMS checklist and risk of bias assessment using PROBAST. The recent publication of the PROBAST+AI framework, which distinguishes the assessment of model development quality from the assessment of model evaluation risk of bias and assesses applicability in both parts, necessitates an updated digital instrument applicable across prediction modelling methods. Methods: We updated an open-access Excel tool to incorporate the full PROBAST+AI framework. The updated template incorporates structural separation between assessment of model development quality and model evaluation risk of bias, with applicability assessed in both parts. It also incorporates updated signalling questions, including those addressing methodological issues particularly relevant to AI/ML, and automates the generation of summary tables and graphical displays. Results: The updated tool (CHARMS & PROBAST+AI Template) contains 11 worksheets and supports data extraction and appraisal for up to 30 prediction models. Dedicated, linked worksheets enable separate assessment of model development and model evaluation, with Domain 4 distinguishing among Apparent, Internal, and External evaluation settings. Key updates include dedicated assessments for predictor pre-processing, class imbalance handling and recalibration, data leakage prevention, and replication of the full model development pipeline within resampling procedures. Automated sheets dynamically format tables and summary charts covering PROBAST+AI parts. Conclusions: The CHARMS & PROBAST+AI Excel template provides a standardised, user-friendly, and rigorous digital framework for systematic reviewers appraising traditional statistical and AI-driven clinical prediction models.

Agentic workflows can coordinate modelling, but balancing predictive performance, measurement burden and reproducibility is unclear. We developed DXA Agent, an agentic workflow for dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) outcomes integrating planning, feature-model refinement, tools, provenance and hypothesis-generating interpretation. Models were independently developed and tested in UK Biobank (5,318 participants) and the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES; 3,777 participants), using cost-efficient and no-limit strategies. Across 20 UK Biobank and three NHANES bone mineral density sites, cost-efficient models achieved lower RMSE and higher R2 than the best conventional comparator, with median relative RMSE reductions of 10.9% and 9.9%, respectively. Classification was task dependent: UK Biobank osteoporosis averaged AUROC 0.839 and PR-AUC 0.182, whereas NHANES performance was comparable with conventional models. Higher-burden features did not consistently improve prediction. These retrospective, cohort-internal findings position DXA Agent as an inspectable, measurement-burden-aware research workflow requiring independent prospective validation.

BACKGROUND: We used anthropometric data from electronic health records (EHRs) of Swiss childrens hospitals to evaluate growth references and estimate centile curves. METHODS: We received EHRs extracted from seven Swiss childrens hospitals and analysed two samples: all children with a height, weight, body mass index (BMI), or head circumference recording, and a subsample restricted to children without diseases potentially affecting growth, weighted to represent the general population. We calculated mean z-scores based on the World Health Organization growth references adopted for Switzerland in 2011 (CH-WHO 2011) and current Swiss growth references (Swiss 2026). We estimated sex-specific centile curves in the subsample using generalised additive models for location, scale, and shape. RESULTS: We included 213,868 children with height, 448,002 with weight, 209,244 with BMI, and 67,397 with head circumference recordings. Mean z-scores in the all children sample were (CH-WHO 2011; Swiss 2026): height (0.10; -0.19), weight (0.16; -0.09), BMI (0.04; -0.07), head circumference (-0.28, -0.28); and in the subsample: height (0.34; 0.00), weight (0.27; 0.01), BMI (0.18; 0.05), and head circumference (0.04; 0.01). The 50th height, weight, BMI, and head circumference centiles of girls and boys in the subsample closely followed those of Swiss 2026, with slightly wider 3rd and 97th centiles in infancy and adolescence. CONCLUSION: Height, weight, BMI, and head circumference centiles aligned well with the Swiss 2026 growth references in Switzerland, demonstrating that hospital EHRs could contribute to future growth references.

Objective. To determine the publication rate of abstracts presented at the American Diabetes Association Scientific Sessions and to evaluate the association between statistical significance of study results and subsequent publication. Research Design and Methods. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of abstracts presented at the 2018 American Diabetes Association Scientific Sessions. The primary exposure was study result category (statistically significant vs. non-statistically significant findings), and the primary outcome was publication in an indexed journal within 5 years after conference presentation. Publication status was determined through PubMed/MEDLINE and Scopus searches. Adjusted relative risks (RRs) and 95% CIs were estimated using generalized linear models with Poisson distribution and robust variance. Results. Among 541 included abstracts, 321 (59.3%) were subsequently published in indexed journals. Abstracts reporting statistically significant findings had a higher publication rate than those reporting non-statistically significant findings (61.9% vs. 42.3%; p=0.002). In the adjusted analysis, abstracts with non-statistically significant findings had a lower likelihood of publication compared with those reporting statistically significant findings (adjusted RR 0.71 [95% CI 0.55-0.93]; p=0.013). Conclusions. Approximately four in ten abstracts presented at the ADA Scientific Sessions were not published within 5 years. Abstracts reporting non-statistically significant findings had a lower likelihood of subsequent publication, suggesting persistent publication bias in diabetology research. Future initiatives promoting the interpretation of effect estimates, confidence intervals and clinical relevance, rather than statistical significance alone, may help reduce selective dissemination of evidence

Large language models perform well on medical examinations, but users routinely challenge their answers and invoke professional roles, and it is unclear what a system does when a medical credential and a stated task-specific accuracy point in opposite directions. In a factorial experiment on 480 items from four Polish specialty examination sets and three consumer large language model systems (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini), each item and system received eleven independent conversations. Conditions crossed attributed source role (medical student, experienced specialist), stated prior accuracy on similar questions (2/10, 8/10) and suggestion correctness. The primary outcome was adoption of a prespecified incorrect option when the baseline answer matched the official key, comparing a specialist described as 2/10 with a student described as 8/10. Baseline agreement with the key was 87.2% across 15,683 analyzable conversations. The incorrect option was adopted more often from the specialist described as 2/10 than from the student described as 8/10 (10.2% vs. 7.6%; adjusted risk difference +2.82 percentage points, 95% CI +0.65 to +4.99). Estimates varied across the three systems and only one system-specific interval excluded zero. In a prespecified exploratory analysis with a shared eligibility rule, correct suggestions were adopted far more often than incorrect ones (risk difference +35.7 percentage points, 95% CI +30.8 to +40.7), indicating selective rather than indiscriminate compliance. An incorrect suggestion from a specialist with low stated accuracy was therefore slightly more influential than the same suggestion from a student with high stated accuracy, although the difference was modest and varied across systems. Agreement reached only after a user has disclosed a preferred answer should not automatically be treated as an independent second opinion, and medical large language model systems should be evaluated on how they revise answers after such disclosure, not solely on initial accuracy.

Purpose: Lower-limb prosthesis use involves interacting physical, psychosocial, and device-related outcomes that may not be fully captured by conventional clinical assessment. This study aimed to develop and evaluate a stakeholder-informed framework of outcome domains relevant to meaningful everyday prosthesis use. Materials and Methods: A mixed-methods participatory design comprised a structured synthesis of selected clinically relevant content from five established patient-reported outcome measures; semi-structured interviews and importance and actionability ratings with 18 contributors (12 prosthesis users, four clinicians, and two industrial partners); and integration of the synthesis, qualitative, and rating findings. Interview records were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis, and ratings were analysed descriptively. Results: The resulting framework comprised four interrelated domains: Mobility, Physical Function, Psychosocial Wellbeing, and Prosthesis Experience. Mobility showed the clearest convergence across stakeholder perspectives. Prosthesis users showed the largest importance actionability gap for Prosthesis Experience (4.5 vs 3.0), whereas clinicians showed the largest gap for Psychosocial Wellbeing (5.0 vs 3.0). Interviews highlighted day-to-day variability in prosthesis use and the influence of confidence, fatigue, comfort, environmental conditions, social context, and device usability. Conclusions: Meaningful outcome assessment in prosthetic rehabilitation should extend beyond mobility alone to consider physical function, psychosocial wellbeing, and prosthesis experience within everyday contexts. The proposed framework provides a stakeholder-informed foundation for multidimensional outcome assessment in prosthetic rehabilitation.

Background: Clinician-scientists translate clinical observation into discovery, trials, and policy, yet this workforce is shrinking across health systems worldwide. Integrated MB-PhD training, pausing medical training to complete a PhD before clinical exposure or specialisation, is one route into this career. We aimed to evaluate the long-term value of MB-PhD training and the barriers to clinical-academic careers these face after graduation. Methods: We evaluated all 131 graduates (29.8% female) who entered the University College London (UCL) MB-PhD programme over a 25-year period (1994-2018). Bibliometric outputs were collated via an inter-linked information system. Concurrently, all 131 graduates were invited to respond to open-ended questions on career benefits and structural barriers; 99 (75.6%) responded, and responses were independently coded into themes, which were then reviewed and confirmed by a Study Group of 107 individuals, including the 91 respondents who agreed to participate further. Results: Graduates produced 5,877 publications (1,141 first-author, 819 corresponding-author), attracting 350,754 citations, with a mean relative citation ratio of 3.30 {+/-} 0.47, approximately three times the field average and sustained across three decades of programme entry. Graduates secured an estimated $157.55 million across 99 grants, released 465 public datasets, and were named investigators on 31 clinical trials across five continents. Among the 99 survey respondents, 49.5% held consultant-grade posts, 72.7% remained research-active, and 25.3% had reached senior academic grade. Open-ended responses were coded into five recurring structural barriers, subsequently confirmed by the Study Group: insufficient protected research time (72.2% of responses), unsupportive training structures and limited career opportunities (36.7%, 24.4% of responses), funding and pay barriers (22.2% of responses), and lack of mentorship or geographical/family constraints (14.4%, 13.3% of responses). Conclusions: Integrated MB-PhD training generates sustained academic productivity and leadership, but structural barriers threaten retention of graduates within clinical-academic careers. Protecting research time, stabilising funding and pay, and reducing geographic instability are needed to retain the clinician-scientists that health systems have already invested in training.

Background Mirror therapy (MT)-specifically paradigms using mirror visual feedback (MVF)-is widely used in neurorehabilitation; however, mechanistic implementations vary substantially in movement content, rhythmicity and attentional demands. This protocol describes an acute mechanistic, within-participant fNIRS screening study designed to compare three prespecified upper-limb mirror-therapy task paradigms and to quantify associated subjective experience after each condition in healthy adults during a single visit. Methods and analysis This is a single-centre, within-participant, randomised crossover study conducted at Wuhan Wuchang Hospital (Wuhan, China). Healthy adults aged 18-35 years will complete three task conditions once each in a counterbalanced order using a 3*3 Latin-square scheme: UMT1 (task-oriented rhythmic functional movement), UMT2 (open-ended free movement with auditory control), and UMT3 (non-functional rhythmic movement). fNIRS will be acquired using the NirSmart-6000A system during a standardised block design. The primary outcome is ROI-level HbO activation quantified as GLM-derived {beta} estimates within the prespecified primary ROIs (bilateral SM1/M1 and bilateral PMC). Secondary outcomes include ROI-level windowed {Delta}HbO (5-20 s post-onset relative to the immediately preceding rest; descriptive only), ROI-level {Delta}HbR, and post-condition subjective ratings (illusion, immersion, confusion and fatigue; 1-7 Likert). Condition effects will be analysed using linear mixed-effects models with fixed effects for condition and period and prespecified multiplicity-adjusted pairwise contrasts. Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee of Wuchang Hospital Affiliated to Wuhan University of Science and Technology (Approval No.: 2025-112-01; approved on 2025-08-21). The study is expected to be minimal risk. Findings will be disseminated through publication of this protocol manuscript and subsequent results manuscripts and conference presentations. Trial registration number Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2600116634). This study is conducted as a prespecified mechanistic sub-study under the overarching registered project.

Background Respiratory infections remain the leading infectious cause of death among children and adolescents, yet the share of these deaths that could be averted with currently feasible care is not routinely quantified. Existing amenable-mortality frameworks rely on cause lists and population-level mortality benchmarks and do not exploit information on how many episodes occur. We propose an episode-fatality-ratio (EFR) frontier approach and apply it to lower respiratory infections (LRI), whooping cough (pertussis) and upper respiratory infections (URI) in 204 countries, 1990-2023. Methods For each cause, country and year we computed EFR = deaths/incident episodes using Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2023 estimates for ages 0-19 years. The frontier was defined as the 10th-percentile country EFR within each GBD super-region, cause and year; avoidable deaths = max(0, deaths - episodes x frontier EFR). Primary estimates are deterministic; 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs) come from 2,000 Monte Carlo draws. Sensitivity analyses varied the frontier percentile, applied an aspirational global frontier, constructed pertussis counterfactuals, and recomputed all estimates within the single under-5 age band. Results In 2023, 333,803 childhood deaths from lower respiratory infections (95% UI 289,123-417,460; 46.9% of LRI deaths) were avoidable. Summing the three causes deterministically gives 391,034 avoidable deaths (46.5% of 840,444); the combined figure is a deterministic sum, and a UI is available for the LRI component only. The pertussis (43,958; 39.0%) and URI (13,273; 81.0%) estimates are secondary: their deterministic point values fall below their own Monte Carlo intervals and the underlying death estimates carry very wide uncertainty (global pertussis UI 12,545-321,874). Avoidable deaths fell from 1,050,468 (44.9%) in 1990, but between 2019 and 2023 the avoidable share for LRI+URI barely moved (48.7% to 47.7%) while absolute avoidable deaths fell 14.5%, a pattern consistent with stalled convergence to the frontier. Sub-Saharan Africa plus South Asia held 73.1% of avoidable deaths in 2023 versus 41.8% in 1990; ten countries accounted for 59.1%. Conclusion Nearly half of childhood respiratory-infection deaths remain avoidable relative to within-region best practice, and the residual burden is increasingly concentrated in low-income settings. In the pertussis counterfactual, most countries kept pace with their regional frontier, so further gains require advancing the frontier itself through quality-of-care improvements.

Wearable (accelerometer) data and machine-learning allow objective assessment of the amount of daily physical activity. However, wearable-derived human activity is subject to measurement error. No studies have corrected the dose-response association between physical activity and survival time to chronic diseases, including cardiovascular disease (CVD). The objective is to estimate the measurement error-corrected association between CVD events and multiple measures of daily duration of light and total physical activity, derived from machine-learning and conventional accelerometer-processing methods. Our method combined an accelerated failure time model, spline, and simulation-extrapolation (SIMEX). The method recovered the true dose-response non-linear association in simulated data, while the naive model failed to capture it due to substantial attenuation. Application to the UK Biobank accelerometer cohort also showed an increased protective association of total physical activity after SIMEX correction (Time Ratio [TR] = 1.56, 95% CI: 1.28-1.82 vs. TR = 1.38, 95% CI: 1.24-1.54 for SIMEX-corrected vs. uncorrected dose-response association between the 95th and 5th percentiles of total activity), with a similar increase for light physical activity. Sensitivity analysis indicates that the female population experiences a substantially larger protective association after SIMEX correction than males. Dose-response survival analysis is a widely used analytical method in physical activity epidemiology and benefits from measurement error correction.

Importance Non-inferiority trials are becoming increasingly popular in abdominal surgery. The non- inferiority margin is critical in the interpretation and conclusion of these trials. Objective This systematic review aims to assess the methodological and reporting quality of non- inferiority randomized controlled trials in abdominal surgery. Evidence Review Non-inferiority trials were systematically identified by searching Ovid Medline, Embase and the CENTRAL databases from 2006 until December 2025. Randomized controlled trials in adult patients with any type of abdominal surgical intervention in at least one trial arm and a sample size greater than or equal to 100 were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was the definition of the non- inferiority margin. Secondary outcomes were the reporting of the non-inferiority margin, the robustness of its estimation, the uncertainty of the point estimate and the adequacy of conclusions. Findings A total of 11 045 trials were identified, of which 101 were eligible, enrolling 44 370 patients. Most trials provided a rationale for the non-inferiority design, while six (5.9%) trials did not. Previous literature was commonly used (n=56; 55.4%), but the non-inferiority margin was most often based on a clinical fixed margin or on historical comparison of the treatment and the active comparator. Based on the margin, investigators tolerated substantially worse outcomes of the treatment compared to the comparator. Conclusions were appropriate based on the confidence interval and the predefined non- inferiority margin in 88 (87.1%) of trials. The clinical judgement of the conclusion was overall adequate. Confidence interval estimations were reported in 16 (15.8%) of trials. Simulation studies were limited by the reporting quality. Conclusions and Relevance Clinical fixed margins are commonly used in abdominal surgery non-inferiority randomized controlled trials, however, substantial shortcomings in reporting limit the interpretability and reproduction of study findings. Based on the findings of this study, guidance on surgical- specific non-inferiority margin definitions is needed.

Background: The relative merits of infrainguinal bypass and primary major lower limb amputation (MLLA) for chronic limb-threatening ischaemia (CLTI) remain uncertain, and the baseline profiles of patients selected for each strategy are poorly described. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were undertaken in accordance with PRISMA 2020 and prospectively registered (PROSPERO: CRD42022356094). MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and CINAHL were searched from inception to March 2025. Prospective studies of adults with CLTI undergoing primary infrainguinal bypass or primary MLLA were eligible. Mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and subsequent amputation outcomes were synthesised using random-effects meta-analysis of proportions. Baseline comorbidity profiles were also extracted. Results: Twenty-seven studies involving 6,576 patients were included: 5,779 underwent infrainguinal bypass and 797 underwent MLLA. After bypass, pooled mortality was 3.7% at 30 days (95% CI 2.8%-4.9%, I2 = 49.4%), 18.5% at 1 year (95% CI 15.6%-21.9%, I2 = 62.3%), and 54.3% at 5 years (95% CI 50.5%-58.0%, I2 = 0%). After MLLA, pooled mortality was 9.2% at 30 days (95% CI 4.1%-19.3%, I2 = 73.5%), 28.5% at 1 year (95% CI 13.3%-51.0, I2 = 70.8%), and 39.9% at 2 years (95% CI 0.3%-99.3, I2 = 90.5%), although longer-term estimates were limited by sparse data and marked heterogeneity. Thirty-day MACE was 6.5% (95% CI 4.3%-9.7, I2 = 63.5%) after bypass and 2.8% after MLLA (95% CI 0.1%-37.6%, I2 = 0%). Early subsequent major amputation after bypass occurred in 3.9% of patients (95% CI 2.0%-7.7%, I2 = 91.2%), rising to 16.2% at 1 year (95% CI 12.6%-20.5%, I2 = 82.0%) and 33.3% at 3 years (95% CI 20.1%-49.8%, I2 = 0%). Early re-amputation after MLLA occurred in 10.9% of patients (95% CI 4.5%-24.4%, I2 = 40.3%). Baseline comorbidity burden was high in both groups, with substantial heterogeneity across studies. Conclusions: CLTI carries a poor prognosis regardless of treatment strategy. Infrainguinal bypass is associated with lower early mortality and better early limb preservation than primary MLLA, but long-term survival remains poor and later limb failure is common. Primary MLLA is not a low-risk alternative. Better contemporary comparative evidence utilising modern causal inference approaches is needed to support individualised decision-making.

Background Agenda-setting is a fundamental patient-centered communication practice in which a clinician works with a patient to elicit, propose, and organize topics for discussion during a clinical encounter. Various agenda-setting interventions have been developed, including patient-facing tools and clinician training, but their effects have not been systematically evaluated. We aimed to determine the effects of these interventions on encounter, patient, care partner, and clinician outcomes. Methods We searched grey literature and seven databases, including PubMed, from inception through July 2025 for randomized and non-randomized comparative studies of interventions designed to promote or improve clinical visit agenda-setting. Two reviewers independently screened articles and extracted data, with a third reviewer resolving conflicts. We assessed risk of bias using RoB 2 for randomized studies and ROBINS-I for non-randomized studies. We conducted random effects meta-analyses when outcomes were sufficiently comparable, assessed heterogeneity using I2, and rated certainty of evidence using GRADE. Post hoc exploratory subgroup analyses examined study design, adjustment status, and intervention structure. Results Twenty-nine articles describing 22 unique studies met the inclusion criteria, including 13 randomized and nine non-randomized studies. Agenda-setting interventions increased the occurrence of agenda-setting (risk ratio 5.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.06 to 14.28, I2=34.6%) and favored the intervention for concerns addressed when measured as a continuous outcome (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.37, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.57, I2=65.3%) and overall clinician satisfaction (SMD 0.50, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.78, I2=0.0%). There were no clear differences in the number of concerns raised (mean difference (MD) 0.21, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.61, I2=59.6%), visit duration (MD 0.64 minutes, 95% CI -0.83 to 2.12, I2=51.4%), or overall patient satisfaction (SMD 0.05, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.15, I2=47.0%). Potentially important heterogeneity was present for four of these six outcomes. Post hoc exploratory subgroup analyses did not provide clear evidence that effects varied by study design, adjustment status, or intervention structure. Risk of bias was often high, serious, or critical, and certainty of evidence was low or very low for all pooled outcomes. Conclusions To our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive synthesis of clinical visit agenda-setting interventions. Such interventions may increase the occurrence of agenda-setting and the extent to which patient concerns are addressed without increasing visit length. However, the certainty of evidence was low or very low, and the available evidence does not establish a superior intervention structure.

Background Little evidence is available on the epidemiology of different knee injuries at a whole-of-population level. The objective of this article is to provide accurate estimates of knee injury incidence by harnessing the unique comprehensive, population-wide data of New Zealand's universal no-fault injury insurance provider, the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC). Methods We obtained insurance claims data from ACC covering all knee injury insurance claims approved between 2015 and 2024. We calculated the number of injuries and the incidence rate per 100 000 population, by injury type, year, sex, ethnicity, and age. Results The total number of injuries increased from 184 710 (4 067 per 100 000 population) in 2015 to 244 155 (4 701 per 100 000) in 2024. The most common injuries were other/unspecified ligament sprains, contusions, and collateral ligament sprains. Ligament and cartilage injuries were more common for males than for females, while contusions were more common for females. Ligament tears and dislocations were more common in younger people (15 to 35 years of age), while cartilage injuries were more common at older ages (40 to 65 years). Discussion and Conclusions The rate of knee injuries observed in this study was higher than previously reported in other settings, probably due to broader coverage of injuries treated in primary and community care settings. A broad range of injuries were common, including those that have received less attention in the epidemiological literature to date. More research is needed on the prevention, burden, and outcomes of different knee injuries, beyond a narrow focus on cruciate ligament injuries.