4.6 Article

Assessing Risk Prediction Models Using Individual Participant Data From Multiple Studies

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 179, Issue 5, Pages 621-632

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwt298

Keywords

C index; coronary heart disease; D measure; individual participant data; inverse variance; meta-analysis; risk prediction; weighting

Funding

  1. United Kingdom Medical Research Council [G0701619, U105260558]
  2. British Heart Foundation [RG/08/014]
  3. Medical Research Council
  4. United Kingdom National Institute of Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre
  5. Bupa Foundation
  6. GlaxoSmithKline
  7. British Heart Foundation [RG/13/2/30098, RG/07/008/23674, PG/11/63/29011, RG/08/014/24067] Funding Source: researchfish
  8. Economic and Social Research Council [ES/J023299/1, ES/F02679X/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  9. Medical Research Council [G19/35, G0100222, G0701619, MR/L003120/1, G8802774, MC_UU_12015/1, G1000616, G0800270, MC_U105260558, G0902037, MC_U105260792, MR/K013351/1, MC_U106179471] Funding Source: researchfish
  10. National Institute for Health Research [NF-SI-0512-10165] Funding Source: researchfish
  11. ESRC [ES/F02679X/1, ES/J023299/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  12. MRC [G0800270, MC_UU_12015/1, G1000616, MC_U105260792, G0902037, MR/K013351/1, MR/L003120/1, G0701619, MC_U105260558] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Individual participant time-to-event data from multiple prospective epidemiologic studies enable detailed investigation into the predictive ability of risk models. Here we address the challenges in appropriately combining such information across studies. Methods are exemplified by analyses of log C-reactive protein and conventional risk factors for coronary heart disease in the Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration, a collation of individual data from multiple prospective studies with an average follow-up duration of 9.8 years (dates varied). We derive risk prediction models using Cox proportional hazards regression analysis stratified by study and obtain estimates of risk discrimination, Harrell's concordance index, and Royston's discrimination measure within each study; we then combine the estimates across studies using aweighted meta-analysis. Various weighting approaches are compared and lead us to recommend using the number of events in each study. We also discuss the calculation of measures of reclassification for multiple studies. We further show that comparison of differences in predictive ability across subgroups should be based only on within-study information and that combining measures of risk discrimination from case-control studies and prospective studies is problematic. The concordance index and discrimination measure gave qualitatively similar results throughout. While the concordance index was very heterogeneous between studies, principally because of differing age ranges, the increments in the concordance index from adding log C-reactive protein to conventional risk factors were more homogeneous.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available