Literature DB >> 15845334

Substantial effective sample sizes were required for external validation studies of predictive logistic regression models.

Yvonne Vergouwe1, Ewout W Steyerberg, Marinus J C Eijkemans, J Dik F Habbema.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The performance of a prediction model is usually worse in external validation data compared to the development data. We aimed to determine at which effective sample sizes (i.e., number of events) relevant differences in model performance can be detected with adequate power.
METHODS: We used a logistic regression model to predict the probability that residual masses of patients treated for metastatic testicular cancer contained only benign tissue. We performed standard power calculations and Monte Carlo simulations to estimate the numbers of events that are required to detect several types of model invalidity with 80% power at the 5% significance level.
RESULTS: A validation sample with 111 events was required to detect that a model predicted too high probabilities, when predictions were on average 1.5 times too high on the odds scale. A decrease in discriminative ability of the model, indicated by a decrease in the c-statistic from 0.83 to 0.73, required 81 to 106 events, depending on the specific scenario.
CONCLUSION: We suggest a minimum of 100 events and 100 nonevents for external validation samples. Specific hypotheses may, however, require substantially higher effective sample sizes to obtain adequate power.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15845334     DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.06.017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  166 in total

1.  External validity of risk models: Use of benchmark values to disentangle a case-mix effect from incorrect coefficients.

Authors:  Yvonne Vergouwe; Karel G M Moons; Ewout W Steyerberg
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2010-08-31       Impact factor: 4.897

2.  A clinical decision rule to predict adult patients with traumatic intracranial haemorrhage who do not require intensive care unit admission.

Authors:  Daniel K Nishijima; Kiarash Shahlaie; Angela Echeverri; James F Holmes
Journal:  Injury       Date:  2011-08-11       Impact factor: 2.586

3.  The S.T.O.N.E. nephrolithometry scoring system: How valid is it?

Authors:  Thomas Tailly; Hassan Razvi
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2015 May-Jun       Impact factor: 1.862

Review 4.  Statistical considerations on prognostic models for glioma.

Authors:  Annette M Molinaro; Margaret R Wrensch; Robert B Jenkins; Jeanette E Eckel-Passow
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2015-12-08       Impact factor: 12.300

5.  Validation of the Cummings' risk score; how well does it identify women with high risk of hip fracture: the Tromsø Study.

Authors:  Luai A Ahmed; Henrik Schirmer; Vinjar Fønnebø; Ragnar M Joakimsen; Gro K Berntsen
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2006-11-22       Impact factor: 8.082

6.  A logistic regression model for predicting malignant pheochromocytomas.

Authors:  Baohua Gao; Yanxia Sun; Zhongguo Liu; Fanwei Meng; Benkang Shi; Yuqiang Liu; Zhishun Xu
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2007-11-13       Impact factor: 4.553

7.  Potential pitfalls of clinical prediction rules.

Authors:  Chad E Cook
Journal:  J Man Manip Ther       Date:  2008

Review 8.  Comparison of risk factors predicting return to work between patients with subacute and chronic non-specific low back pain: systematic review.

Authors:  C A M Heitz; R Hilfiker; L M Bachmann; H Joronen; T Lorenz; D Uebelhart; A Klipstein; Florian Brunner
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-06-30       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Mortality prediction models for pediatric intensive care: comparison of overall and subgroup specific performance.

Authors:  Idse H E Visser; Jan A Hazelzet; Marcel J I J Albers; Carin W M Verlaat; Karin Hogenbirk; Job B van Woensel; Marc van Heerde; Dick A van Waardenburg; Nicolaas J G Jansen; Ewout W Steyerberg
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2013-02-22       Impact factor: 17.440

10.  Incremental value of the CT coronary calcium score for the prediction of coronary artery disease.

Authors:  Tessa S S Genders; Francesca Pugliese; Nico R Mollet; W Bob Meijboom; Annick C Weustink; Carlos A G van Mieghem; Pim J de Feyter; M G Myriam Hunink
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-06-18       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.