4.6 Article

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

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 68, 期 3, 页码 280-289

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.06.018

关键词

Case mix; Reproducibility; Transportability; Generalizability; Prediction model; Validation

资金

  1. Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research [9120.8004, 918.10.615, 916.11.126, 917.11.383]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: It is widely acknowledged that the performance of diagnostic and prognostic prediction models should be assessed in external validation studies with independent data from different but related samples as compared with that of the development sample. We developed a framework of methodological steps and statistical methods for analyzing and enhancing the interpretation of results from external validation studies of prediction models. Study Design and Setting: We propose to quantify the degree of relatedness between development and validation samples on a scale ranging from reproducibility to transportability by evaluating their corresponding case-mix differences. We subsequently assess the models' performance in the validation sample and interpret the performance in view of the case-mix differences. Finally, we may adjust the model to the validation setting. Results: We illustrate this three-step framework with a prediction model for diagnosing deep venous thrombosis using three validation samples with varying case mix. While one external validation sample merely assessed the model's reproducibility, two other samples rather assessed model transportability. The performance in all validation samples was adequate, and the model did not require extensive updating to correct for miscalibration or poor fit to the validation settings. Conclusion: The proposed framework enhances the interpretation of findings at external validation of prediction models. (C) 2015 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