Literature DB >> 27262237

Geographic and temporal validity of prediction models: different approaches were useful to examine model performance.

Peter C Austin1, David van Klaveren2, Yvonne Vergouwe3, Daan Nieboer3, Douglas S Lee4, Ewout W Steyerberg3.   

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
© 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Calibration; Clinical prediction model; Discrimination; Receiver operating characteristic curve; Risk prediction; Validation; c-statistic

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27262237      PMCID: PMC5708595          DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.05.007

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


  18 in total

1.  Internal validation of predictive models: efficiency of some procedures for logistic regression analysis.

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

2.  Construction and validation of a prognostic model across several studies, with an application in superficial bladder cancer.

Authors:  Patrick Royston; Mahesh K B Parmar; Richard Sylvester
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2004-03-30       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Prognosis and prognostic research: validating a prognostic model.

Authors:  Douglas G Altman; Yvonne Vergouwe; Patrick Royston; Karel G M Moons
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2009-05-28

4.  Prediction models need appropriate internal, internal-external, and external validation.

Authors:  Ewout W Steyerberg; Frank E Harrell
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2015-04-18       Impact factor: 6.437

5.  A new framework to enhance the interpretation of external validation studies of clinical prediction models.

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

6.  Assessing the generalizability of prognostic information.

Authors:  A C Justice; K E Covinsky; J A Berlin
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1999-03-16       Impact factor: 25.391

7.  Interpretation of random effects meta-analyses.

Authors:  Richard D Riley; Julian P T Higgins; Jonathan J Deeks
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2011-02-10

8.  Effectiveness of public report cards for improving the quality of cardiac care: the EFFECT study: a randomized trial.

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

9.  Interpreting the concordance statistic of a logistic regression model: relation to the variance and odds ratio of a continuous explanatory variable.

Authors:  Peter C Austin; Ewout W Steyerberg
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2012-06-20       Impact factor: 4.615

10.  Graphical assessment of internal and external calibration of logistic regression models by using loess smoothers.

Authors:  Peter C Austin; Ewout W Steyerberg
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2013-08-23       Impact factor: 2.373

View more
  18 in total

1.  Preoperative Risk Score to Predict Occult Metastatic or Locally Advanced Disease in Patients with Resectable Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma on Imaging.

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

2.  Radiological predictors of malignant transformation of IPMNs: importance of the predictive model validation.

Authors:  Si W Zhang; Yin W Li; Su Y Luo; Li Xu
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-07-05       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Models estimating risk of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with alcohol or NAFLD-related cirrhosis for risk stratification.

Authors:  George N Ioannou; Pamela Green; Kathleen F Kerr; Kristin Berry
Journal:  J Hepatol       Date:  2019-05-28       Impact factor: 25.083

Review 4.  Framework for Integrating Equity Into Machine Learning Models: A Case Study.

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

5.  Development and validation of early prediction models for new-onset functional impairment at hospital discharge of ICU admission.

Authors:  Hiroyuki Ohbe; Tadahiro Goto; Kensuke Nakamura; Hiroki Matsui; Hideo Yasunaga
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2022-04-01       Impact factor: 41.787

6.  PredictCBC-2.0: a contralateral breast cancer risk prediction model developed and validated in ~ 200,000 patients.

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

7.  Geographic and temporal validity of prediction models: different approaches were useful to examine model performance.

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

8.  Validation of prediction models: examining temporal and geographic stability of baseline risk and estimated covariate effects.

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

9.  Meta-analysis of prediction model performance across multiple studies: Which scale helps ensure between-study normality for the C-statistic and calibration measures?

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

10.  Individualised variable-interval risk-based screening for sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy: the Liverpool Risk Calculation Engine.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.