Peter C Austin1, David van Klaveren2, Yvonne Vergouwe3, Daan Nieboer3, Douglas S Lee4, Ewout W Steyerberg3. 1. Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, G106, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M4N 3M5, Canada; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, Suite 425, Toronto, Ontario M5T 3M6, Canada; Schulich Heart Research Program, Sunnybrook Research Institute, 2056 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M4N 3M5, Canada. Electronic address: peter.austin@ices.on.ca. 2. Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC-University Medical Center Rotterdam, PO Box 2040, Rotterdam 3000 CA, The Netherlands; Predictive Analytics and Comparative Effectiveness Center, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, 800 Washington St, Boston, MA 02111, USA. 3. Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC-University Medical Center Rotterdam, PO Box 2040, Rotterdam 3000 CA, The Netherlands. 4. Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, G106, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M4N 3M5, Canada; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, Suite 425, Toronto, Ontario M5T 3M6, Canada; Peter Munk Cardiac Centre and Joint Department of Medical Imaging, Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, 200 Elizabeth Street, NU 4-482, Toronto, Ontario M5G 2C4, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Validation of clinical prediction models traditionally refers to the assessment of model performance in new patients. We studied different approaches to geographic and temporal validation in the setting of multicenter data from two time periods. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We illustrated different analytic methods for validation using a sample of 14,857 patients hospitalized with heart failure at 90 hospitals in two distinct time periods. Bootstrap resampling was used to assess internal validity. Meta-analytic methods were used to assess geographic transportability. Each hospital was used once as a validation sample, with the remaining hospitals used for model derivation. Hospital-specific estimates of discrimination (c-statistic) and calibration (calibration intercepts and slopes) were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis methods. I2 statistics and prediction interval width quantified geographic transportability. Temporal transportability was assessed using patients from the earlier period for model derivation and patients from the later period for model validation. RESULTS: Estimates of reproducibility, pooled hospital-specific performance, and temporal transportability were on average very similar, with c-statistics of 0.75. Between-hospital variation was moderate according to I2 statistics and prediction intervals for c-statistics. CONCLUSION: This study illustrates how performance of prediction models can be assessed in settings with multicenter data at different time periods. Copyright Â
OBJECTIVE: Validation of clinical prediction models traditionally refers to the assessment of model performance in new patients. We studied different approaches to geographic and temporal validation in the setting of multicenter data from two time periods. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We illustrated different analytic methods for validation using a sample of 14,857 patients hospitalized with heart failure at 90 hospitals in two distinct time periods. Bootstrap resampling was used to assess internal validity. Meta-analytic methods were used to assess geographic transportability. Each hospital was used once as a validation sample, with the remaining hospitals used for model derivation. Hospital-specific estimates of discrimination (c-statistic) and calibration (calibration intercepts and slopes) were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis methods. I2 statistics and prediction interval width quantified geographic transportability. Temporal transportability was assessed using patients from the earlier period for model derivation and patients from the later period for model validation. RESULTS: Estimates of reproducibility, pooled hospital-specific performance, and temporal transportability were on average very similar, with c-statistics of 0.75. Between-hospital variation was moderate according to I2 statistics and prediction intervals for c-statistics. CONCLUSION: This study illustrates how performance of prediction models can be assessed in settings with multicenter data at different time periods. Copyright Â
Authors: E W Steyerberg; F E Harrell; G J Borsboom; M J Eijkemans; Y Vergouwe; J D Habbema Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Thomas P A Debray; Yvonne Vergouwe; Hendrik Koffijberg; Daan Nieboer; Ewout W Steyerberg; Karel G M Moons Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2014-08-30 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Jack V Tu; Linda R Donovan; Douglas S Lee; Julie T Wang; Peter C Austin; David A Alter; Dennis T Ko Journal: JAMA Date: 2009-11-18 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jimme K Wiggers; Bas Groot Koerkamp; David van Klaveren; Robert J Coelen; C Yung Nio; Peter J Allen; Marc G Besselink; Olivier R Busch; Michael I D'Angelica; Ronald P DeMatteo; T Peter Kingham; Thomas M van Gulik; William R Jarnagin Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2018-04-06 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Juan C Rojas; John Fahrenbach; Sonya Makhni; Scott C Cook; James S Williams; Craig A Umscheid; Marshall H Chin Journal: Chest Date: 2022-02-07 Impact factor: 10.262
Authors: Daniele Giardiello; Maartje J Hooning; Michael Hauptmann; Renske Keeman; B A M Heemskerk-Gerritsen; Heiko Becher; Carl Blomqvist; Stig E Bojesen; Manjeet K Bolla; Nicola J Camp; Kamila Czene; Peter Devilee; Diana M Eccles; Peter A Fasching; Jonine D Figueroa; Henrik Flyger; Montserrat García-Closas; Christopher A Haiman; Ute Hamann; John L Hopper; Anna Jakubowska; Floor E Leeuwen; Annika Lindblom; Jan Lubiński; Sara Margolin; Maria Elena Martinez; Heli Nevanlinna; Ines Nevelsteen; Saskia Pelders; Paul D P Pharoah; Sabine Siesling; Melissa C Southey; Annemieke H van der Hout; Liselotte P van Hest; Jenny Chang-Claude; Per Hall; Douglas F Easton; Ewout W Steyerberg; Marjanka K Schmidt Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2022-10-21 Impact factor: 8.408
Authors: Peter C Austin; David van Klaveren; Yvonne Vergouwe; Daan Nieboer; Douglas S Lee; Ewout W Steyerberg Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2016-06-02 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Peter C Austin; David van Klaveren; Yvonne Vergouwe; Daan Nieboer; Douglas S Lee; Ewout W Steyerberg Journal: Diagn Progn Res Date: 2017-04-13
Authors: Kym Ie Snell; Joie Ensor; Thomas Pa Debray; Karel Gm Moons; Richard D Riley Journal: Stat Methods Med Res Date: 2017-05-08 Impact factor: 3.021
Authors: Antonio Eleuteri; Anthony C Fisher; Deborah M Broadbent; Marta García-Fiñana; Christopher P Cheyne; Amu Wang; Irene M Stratton; Mark Gabbay; Daniel Seddon; Simon P Harding Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2017-08-24 Impact factor: 10.122