Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37484279›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2023

Temporal validation of 30-day mortality prediction models for transcatheter aortic valve implantation using statistical process control - An observational study in a national population.

Ricardo R Lopes, Tsvetan T R Yordanov, Anita A C J Ravelli, Saskia Houterman, Marije Vis, Bas A J M de Mol, Henk Marquering, Ameen Abu-Hanna, THI Registration Committee of the Netherlands Heart Registration

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

9 authors.

Ricardo R LopesAmsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Biomedical Engineering and Physics, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Tsvetan T R YordanovAmsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Medical Informatics, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Anita A C J RavelliAmsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Medical Informatics, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Saskia HoutermanNetherlands Heart Registration, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Marije VisAmsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Cardiology, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Bas A J M de MolAmsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Heart Failure and Arrhythmias, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Henk MarqueringAmsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Biomedical Engineering and Physics, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Ameen Abu-HannaAmsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Medical Informatics, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
THI Registration Committee of the Netherlands Heart Registration

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Various mortality prediction models for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) have been developed in the past years. The effect of time on the performance of such models, however, is unclear given the improvements in the procedure and changes in patient selection, potentially jeopardizing the usefulness of the prediction models in clinical practice. We aim to explore how time affects the performance and stability of different types of prediction models of 30-day mortality after TAVI. Methods: We developed both parametric (Logistic Regression) and non-parametric (XGBoost) models to predict 30-day mortality after TAVI using data from the Netherlands Heart Registration. The models were trained with data from 2013 to the beginning of 2016 and pre-control charts from Statistical Process Control were used to analyse how time affects the models' performance on independent data from the mid of 2016 to the end of 2019. The area under the Receiver Operating Characteristics curve (AUC) was used to evaluate the models in terms of discrimination and the Brier Score (BS), which is related to calibration, in terms of accuracy of the predicted probabilities. To understand the extent to which refitting the models contribute to the models' stability, we also allowed the models to be updated over time. Results: We included data from 11,291 consecutive TAVI patients from hospitals in the Netherlands. The parametric model without re-training had a median AUC of 0.64 (IQR 0.54-0.73) and BS of 0.028 (IQR 0.021-0.035). For the non-parametric model, the median AUC was 0.63 (IQR 0.48-0.68) and BS was 0.027 (IQR 0.021-0.036). Over time, the developed parametric model was stable in terms of AUC and unstable in terms of BS. The non-parametric model was considered unstable in both AUC and BS. Repeated model refitting resulted in stable models in terms of AUC and decreased the variability of BS, although BS was still unstable. The refitted parametric model had a median AUC of 0.66 (IQR 0.57-0.73) and BS of 0.027 (IQR 0.020-0.035) while the non-parametric model had a median AUC of 0.66 (IQR 0.57-0.74) and BS of 0.027 (IQR 0.023-0.035). Conclusions: The temporal validation of the TAVI 30-day mortality prediction models showed that the models refitted over time are more stable and accurate when compared to the frozen models. This highlights the importance of repeatedly refitted models over time to improve or at least maintain their performance stability. The non-parametric approach did not show improvement over the parametric approach.

Indexed as

Aortic stenosisMachine learningPrediction modelsStatistical process controlTemporal validationTranscatheter aortic valve implantation

Identifiers

PMID37484279
PMCPMC10361331

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.