Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35387683›Full record

ArticleDiagnostic and prognostic research2022

Quantitative prediction error analysis to investigate predictive performance under predictor measurement heterogeneity at model implementation.

Kim Luijken, Jia Song, Rolf H H Groenwold

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostic and prognostic research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Kim LuijkenDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands. k.luijken@lumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5192-8368
Jia SongDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Rolf H H GroenwoldDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.

Funding

ZonMw 917.16.430
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhen a predictor variable is measured in similar ways at the derivation and validation setting of a prognostic prediction model, yet both differ from the intended use of the model in practice (i.e., "predictor measurement heterogeneity"), performance of the model at implementation needs to be inferred. This study proposed an analysis to quantify the impact of anticipated predictor measurement heterogeneity.

methodsA simulation study was conducted to assess the impact of predictor measurement heterogeneity across validation and implementation setting in time-to-event outcome data. The use of the quantitative prediction error analysis was illustrated using an example of predicting the 6-year risk of developing type 2 diabetes with heterogeneity in measurement of the predictor body mass index.

resultsIn the simulation study, calibration-in-the-large of prediction models was poor and overall accuracy was reduced in all scenarios of predictor measurement heterogeneity. Model discrimination decreased with increasing random predictor measurement heterogeneity.

conclusionsHeterogeneity of predictor measurements across settings of validation and implementation reduced predictive performance at implementation of prognostic models with a time-to-event outcome. When validating a prognostic model, the targeted clinical setting needs to be considered and analyses can be conducted to quantify the impact of anticipated predictor measurement heterogeneity on model performance at implementation.

Indexed as

CalibrationExternal validationMeasurement heterogeneityPrognostic model

Identifiers

PMID35387683
PMCPMC8988417

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.