IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0148820.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing Discriminative Performance at External Validation of Clinical Prediction Models

Author

Listed:
  • Daan Nieboer
  • Tjeerd van der Ploeg
  • Ewout W Steyerberg

Abstract

Introduction: External validation studies are essential to study the generalizability of prediction models. Recently a permutation test, focusing on discrimination as quantified by the c-statistic, was proposed to judge whether a prediction model is transportable to a new setting. We aimed to evaluate this test and compare it to previously proposed procedures to judge any changes in c-statistic from development to external validation setting. Methods: We compared the use of the permutation test to the use of benchmark values of the c-statistic following from a previously proposed framework to judge transportability of a prediction model. In a simulation study we developed a prediction model with logistic regression on a development set and validated them in the validation set. We concentrated on two scenarios: 1) the case-mix was more heterogeneous and predictor effects were weaker in the validation set compared to the development set, and 2) the case-mix was less heterogeneous in the validation set and predictor effects were identical in the validation and development set. Furthermore we illustrated the methods in a case study using 15 datasets of patients suffering from traumatic brain injury. Results: The permutation test indicated that the validation and development set were homogenous in scenario 1 (in almost all simulated samples) and heterogeneous in scenario 2 (in 17%-39% of simulated samples). Previously proposed benchmark values of the c-statistic and the standard deviation of the linear predictors correctly pointed at the more heterogeneous case-mix in scenario 1 and the less heterogeneous case-mix in scenario 2. Conclusion: The recently proposed permutation test may provide misleading results when externally validating prediction models in the presence of case-mix differences between the development and validation population. To correctly interpret the c-statistic found at external validation it is crucial to disentangle case-mix differences from incorrect regression coefficients.

Suggested Citation

  • Daan Nieboer & Tjeerd van der Ploeg & Ewout W Steyerberg, 2016. "Assessing Discriminative Performance at External Validation of Clinical Prediction Models," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-10, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0148820
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0148820
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0148820
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0148820&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0148820?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ewout W Steyerberg & Karel G M Moons & Danielle A van der Windt & Jill A Hayden & Pablo Perel & Sara Schroter & Richard D Riley & Harry Hemingway & Douglas G Altman & for the PROGRESS Group, 2013. "Prognosis Research Strategy (PROGRESS) 3: Prognostic Model Research," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(2), pages 1-9, February.
    2. Ling-Yi Wang & Wen-Chung Lee, 2015. "A Permutation Method to Assess Heterogeneity in External Validation for Risk Prediction Models," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(1), pages 1-6, January.
    3. Richard D Riley & Jill A Hayden & Ewout W Steyerberg & Karel G M Moons & Keith Abrams & Panayiotis A Kyzas & Núria Malats & Andrew Briggs & Sara Schroter & Douglas G Altman & Harry Hemingway & for the, 2013. "Prognosis Research Strategy (PROGRESS) 2: Prognostic Factor Research," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(2), pages 1-9, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nath Adulkasem & Phichayut Phinyo & Jiraporn Khorana & Dumnoensun Pruksakorn & Theerachai Apivatthakakul, 2021. "Development of Clinical Prediction Rules for One-Year Postoperative Functional Outcome in Patients with Intertrochanteric Fractures: The Intertrochanteric Fracture Ambulatory Prediction (IT-AP) Tool," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-16, December.
    2. Julius Sim & Lucy Teece & Martin S Dennis & Christine Roffe & SOࠢS Study Team, 2016. "Validation and Recalibration of Two Multivariable Prognostic Models for Survival and Independence in Acute Stroke," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(5), pages 1-17, May.
    3. Mario Dioguardi & Francesca Spirito & Diego Sovereto & Mario Alovisi & Giuseppe Troiano & Riccardo Aiuto & Daniele Garcovich & Vito Crincoli & Luigi Laino & Angela Pia Cazzolla & Giorgia Apollonia Cal, 2022. "MicroRNA-21 Expression as a Prognostic Biomarker in Oral Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(6), pages 1-12, March.
    4. Catherine Beauregard-Paultre & Claire Nour Abou Chakra & Allison McGeer & Annie-Claude Labbé & Andrew E Simor & Wayne Gold & Matthew P Muller & Jeff Powis & Kevin Katz & Suzanne M Cadarette & Jacques , 2019. "External validation of clinical prediction rules for complications and mortality following Clostridioides difficile infection," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-15, December.
    5. Stephana J Cherak & Andrea Soo & Kyla N Brown & E Wesley Ely & Henry T Stelfox & Kirsten M Fiest, 2020. "Development and validation of delirium prediction model for critically ill adults parameterized to ICU admission acuity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-18, August.
    6. François Luthi & Olivier Deriaz & Philippe Vuistiner & Cyrille Burrus & Roger Hilfiker, 2014. "Predicting Non Return to Work after Orthopaedic Trauma: The Wallis Occupational Rehabilitation RisK (WORRK) Model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(4), pages 1-11, April.
    7. Alwin Schierenberg & Margaretha C Minnaard & Rogier M Hopstaken & Alma C van de Pol & Berna D L Broekhuizen & Niek J de Wit & Johannes B Reitsma & Saskia F van Vugt & Aleida W Graffelman & Hasse Melby, 2016. "External Validation of Prediction Models for Pneumonia in Primary Care Patients with Lower Respiratory Tract Infection: An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-16, February.
    8. Phung Khanh Lam & Dong Thi Hoai Tam & Nguyen Minh Dung & Nguyen Thi Hanh Tien & Nguyen Tan Thanh Kieu & Cameron Simmons & Jeremy Farrar & Bridget Wills & Marcel Wolbers, 2015. "A Prognostic Model for Development of Profound Shock among Children Presenting with Dengue Shock Syndrome," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(5), pages 1-13, May.
    9. Andrew D A C Smith & Kate Tilling & Debbie A Lawlor & Scott M Nelson, 2015. "External Validation and Calibration of IVFpredict: A National Prospective Cohort Study of 130,960 In Vitro Fertilisation Cycles," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-15, April.
    10. Igor O Korolev & Laura L Symonds & Andrea C Bozoki & Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, 2016. "Predicting Progression from Mild Cognitive Impairment to Alzheimer's Dementia Using Clinical, MRI, and Plasma Biomarkers via Probabilistic Pattern Classification," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-25, February.
    11. Jia You & Yu Guo & Yi Zhang & Ju-Jiao Kang & Lin-Bo Wang & Jian-Feng Feng & Wei Cheng & Jin-Tai Yu, 2023. "Plasma proteomic profiles predict individual future health risk," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-13, December.
    12. Todd J. Levy & Kevin Coppa & Jinxuan Cang & Douglas P. Barnaby & Marc D. Paradis & Stuart L. Cohen & Alex Makhnevich & David Klaveren & David M. Kent & Karina W. Davidson & Jamie S. Hirsch & Theodoros, 2022. "Development and validation of self-monitoring auto-updating prognostic models of survival for hospitalized COVID-19 patients," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-14, December.
    13. Jiakun Jiang & Wei Yang & Erin M. Schnellinger & Stephen E. Kimmel & Wensheng Guo, 2023. "Dynamic logistic state space prediction model for clinical decision making," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 79(1), pages 73-85, March.
    14. Zhixuan Fu & Chirag R. Parikh & Bingqing Zhou, 2017. "Penalized variable selection in competing risks regression," Lifetime Data Analysis: An International Journal Devoted to Statistical Methods and Applications for Time-to-Event Data, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 353-376, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0148820. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.