Journal
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 118, Issue -, Pages 93-99Publisher
ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.09.016
Keywords
Clinical prediction rule; Calibration; Validation; Discrimination; Spread; Slope
Funding
- NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre
- Heart Foundation Hynds Senior Fellowship
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Background and Objectives: Definitions of calibration, an aspect of model validation, have evolved over time. We examine use and interpretation of the statistic currently referred to as the calibration slope. Methods: The history of the term calibration slope, and usage in papers published in 2016 and 2017, were reviewed. The behaviour of the slope in illustrative hypothetical examples and in two examples in the clinical literature was demonstrated. Results: The paper in which the statistic was proposed described it as a measure of spread and did not use the term calibration. In illustrative examples, slope of 1 can be associated with good or bad calibration, and this holds true across different definitions of calibration. In data extracted from a previous study, the slope was correlated with discrimination, not overall calibration. Many authors of recent papers interpret the slope as a measure of calibration; a minority interpret it as a measure of discrimination or do not explicitly categorise it as either. Seventeen of thirty-three papers used the slope as the sole measure of calibration. Conclusion: Misunderstanding about this statistic has led to many papers in which it is the sole measure of calibration, which should be discouraged. (C) 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available