4.6 Article

Adequate sample size for developing prediction models is not simply related to events per variable

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 76, 期 -, 页码 175-182

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.02.031

关键词

Events per variable; Cox model; External validation; Predictive modeling; Sample size; Resampling study

资金

  1. MRC Partnership Grant for the PROGnosis RESearch Strategy (PROGRESS) group [G0902393]
  2. Medical Research Council [G1100513]
  3. Cancer Research UK [16895] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. Medical Research Council [G1100513, G0902393] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. National Institute for Health Research [NF-SI-0513-10131] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. MRC [G1100513, G0902393] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: The choice of an adequate sample size for a Cox regression analysis is generally based on the rule of thumb derived from simulation studies of a minimum of 10 events per variable (EPV). One simulation study suggested scenarios in which the 10 EPV rule can be relaxed. The effect of a range of binary predictors with varying prevalence, reflecting clinical practice, has not yet been fully investigated. Study Design and Setting: We conducted an extended resampling study using a large general-practice data set, comprising over 2 million anonymized patient records, to examine the EPV requirements for prediction models with low-prevalence binary predictors developed using Cox regression. The performance of the models was then evaluated using an independent external validation data set. We investigated both fully specified models and models derived using variable selection. Results: Our results indicated that an EPV rule of thumb should be data driven and that EPV >= 20 generally eliminates bias in regression coefficients when many low-prevalence predictors are included in a Cox model. Conclusion: Higher EPV is needed when low-prevalence predictors are present in a model to eliminate bias in regression coefficients and improve predictive-accuracy. (C) 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据