Evidence mapPaperPMID 39447145Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2024

Targeted Development and Validation of Clinical Prediction Models in Secondary Care Settings: Opportunities and Challenges for Electronic Health Record Data.

I S van Maurik, H J Doodeman, B W Veeger-Nuijens, R P M Möhringer, D R Sudiono, W Jongbloed, E van Soelen

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

I S van MaurikNorthwest Academy, Northwest Clinics Alkmaar, Pr Julianalaan 14, Alkmaar, 1815JE, Netherlands, 31 0880853821.ORCID 0000-0001-6919-8340
H J DoodemanNorthwest Academy, Northwest Clinics Alkmaar, Pr Julianalaan 14, Alkmaar, 1815JE, Netherlands, 31 0880853821.ORCID 0000-0001-6309-0013
B W Veeger-NuijensNorthwest Academy, Northwest Clinics Alkmaar, Pr Julianalaan 14, Alkmaar, 1815JE, Netherlands, 31 0880853821.ORCID 0009-0008-4950-8530
R P M MöhringerDepartment of Information and Communication Technology, Northwest Clinics Alkmaar, Alkmaar, Netherlands.ORCID 0009-0004-1100-9884
D R SudionoDepartment of Information and Communication Technology, Northwest Clinics Alkmaar, Alkmaar, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3990-4296
W JongbloedDepartment of Clinical Chemistry, Hematology and Immunology, Northwest Clinics Alkmaar, Alkmaar, Netherlands.ORCID 0009-0004-1167-0138
E van SoelenNorthwest Academy, Northwest Clinics Alkmaar, Pr Julianalaan 14, Alkmaar, 1815JE, Netherlands, 31 0880853821.ORCID 0009-0004-6569-002X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Unlabelled: Before deploying a clinical prediction model (CPM) in clinical practice, its performance needs to be demonstrated in the population of intended use. This is also called "targeted validation." Many CPMs developed in tertiary settings may be most useful in secondary care, where the patient case mix is broad and practitioners need to triage patients efficiently. However, since structured or rich datasets of sufficient quality from secondary to assess the performance of a CPM are scarce, a validation gap exists that hampers the implementation of CPMs in secondary care settings. In this viewpoint, we highlight the importance of targeted validation and the use of CPMs in secondary care settings and discuss the potential and challenges of using electronic health record (EHR) data to overcome the existing validation gap. The introduction of software applications for text mining of EHRs allows the generation of structured "big" datasets, but the imperfection of EHRs as a research database requires careful validation of data quality. When using EHR data for the development and validation of CPMs, in addition to widely accepted checklists, we propose considering three additional practical steps: (1) involve a local EHR expert (clinician or nurse) in the data extraction process, (2) perform validity checks on the generated datasets, and (3) provide metadata on how variables were constructed from EHRs. These steps help to generate EHR datasets that are statistically powerful, of sufficient quality and replicable, and enable targeted development and validation of CPMs in secondary care settings. This approach can fill a major gap in prediction modeling research and appropriately advance CPMs into clinical practice.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsSecondary Health CareData MiningHumansReproducibility of ResultsAIartificial intelligenceclinical prediction modelCPMEHRelectronic health recordEMRmachine learningprediction modelssecondary caretargeted validationvalidation

Identifiers

PMID39447145
PMCPMC11615704

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.