IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v45y2025i3p232-244.html

Expected Value of Sample Information Calculations for Risk Prediction Model Validation

Author

Listed:
  • Mohsen Sadatsafavi

    (Respiratory Evaluation Sciences Program, Collaboration for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada)

  • Andrew J. Vickers

    (Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan, Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA)

  • Tae Yoon Lee

    (Respiratory Evaluation Sciences Program, Collaboration for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada)

  • Paul Gustafson

    (Department of Statistics, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada)

  • Laure Wynants

    (Department of Epidemiology, CAPHRI Care and Public Health, Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
    Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium)

Abstract

Background The purpose of external validation of a risk prediction model is to evaluate its performance before recommending it for use in a new population. Sample size calculations for such validation studies are currently based on classical inferential statistics around metrics of discrimination, calibration, and net benefit (NB). For NB as a measure of clinical utility, the relevance of inferential statistics is doubtful. Value-of-information methodology enables quantifying the value of collecting validation data in terms of expected gain in clinical utility. Methods We define the validation expected value of sample information (EVSI) as the expected gain in NB by procuring a validation sample of a given size. We propose 3 algorithms for EVSI computation and compare their face validity and computation time in simulation studies. In a case study, we use the non-US subset of a clinical trial to create a risk prediction model for short-term mortality after myocardial infarction and calculate validation EVSI at a range of sample sizes for the US population. Results Computation methods generated similar EVSI values in simulation studies, although they differed in numerical accuracy and computation times. At 2% risk threshold, procuring 1,000 observations for external validation, had an EVSI of 0.00101 in true-positive units or 0.04938 in false-positive units. Scaled by heart attack incidence in the United States, the population EVSI was 806 in true positives gained, or 39,500 in false positives averted, annually. Validation studies with >4,000 observations had diminishing returns, as the EVSIs were approaching their maximum possible value. Conclusion Value-of-information methodology quantifies the return on investment from conducting an external validation study and can provide a value-based perspective when designing such studies. Highlights In external validation studies of risk prediction models, the finite size of the validation sample leads to uncertain conclusions about the performance of the model. This uncertainty has hitherto been approached from a classical inferential perspective (e.g., confidence interval around the c-statistic). Correspondingly, sample size calculations for validation studies have been based on classical inferential statistics. For measures of clinical utility such as net benefit, the relevance of this approach is doubtful. This article defines the expected value of sample information (EVSI) for model validation and suggests algorithms for its computation. Validation EVSI quantifies the return on investment from conducting a validation study. Value-based approaches rooted in decision theory can complement contemporary study design and sample size calculation methods in predictive analytics.

Suggested Citation

  • Mohsen Sadatsafavi & Andrew J. Vickers & Tae Yoon Lee & Paul Gustafson & Laure Wynants, 2025. "Expected Value of Sample Information Calculations for Risk Prediction Model Validation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 45(3), pages 232-244, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:45:y:2025:i:3:p:232-244
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X251314010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X251314010
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X251314010?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. Andrew J. Vickers & Elena B. Elkin, 2006. "Decision Curve Analysis: A Novel Method for Evaluating Prediction Models," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 26(6), pages 565-574, November.
    2. David Glynn & Georgios Nikolaidis & Dina Jankovic & Nicky J. Welton, 2023. "Constructing Relative Effect Priors for Research Prioritization and Trial Design: A Meta-epidemiological Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(5), pages 553-563, July.
    3. Paolo Capogrosso & Andrew J. Vickers, 2019. "A Systematic Review of the Literature Demonstrates Some Errors in the Use of Decision Curve Analysis but Generally Correct Interpretation of Findings," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(5), pages 493-498, July.
    4. Mohsen Sadatsafavi & Tae Yoon Lee & Paul Gustafson, 2022. "Uncertainty and the Value of Information in Risk Prediction Modeling," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(5), pages 661-671, July.
    5. Anna Heath & Natalia Kunst & Christopher Jackson & Mark Strong & Fernando Alarid-Escudero & Jeremy D. Goldhaber-Fiebert & Gianluca Baio & Nicolas A. Menzies & Hawre Jalal, 2020. "Calculating the Expected Value of Sample Information in Practice: Considerations from 3 Case Studies," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(3), pages 314-326, April.
    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. Tae Yoon Lee & Paul Gustafson & Mohsen Sadatsafavi, 2023. "Closed-Form Solution of the Unit Normal Loss Integral in 2 Dimensions, with Application in Value-of-Information Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(5), pages 621-626, July.
    2. Yuan Gao & Sofia Ventura-Diaz & Xin Wang & Muzhen He & Zeyan Xu & Arlene Weir & Hong-Yu Zhou & Tianyu Zhang & Frederieke H. Duijnhoven & Luyi Han & Xiaomei Li & Anna D’Angelo & Valentina Longo & Zaiyi, 2024. "An explainable longitudinal multi-modal fusion model for predicting neoadjuvant therapy response in women with breast cancer," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-17, December.
    3. Ja Hyeon Ku & Myong Kim & Seok-Soo Byun & Hyeon Jeong & Cheol Kwak & Hyeon Hoe Kim & Sang Eun Lee, 2015. "External Validation of Models for Prediction of Lymph Node Metastasis in Urothelial Carcinoma of the Bladder," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(10), pages 1-10, October.
    4. Félix L. Morales & Feihong Xu & Hyojun Ada Lee & Helio Tejedor Navarro & Meagan A. Bechel & Eryn L. Cameron & Jesse Kelso & Curtis H. Weiss & Luís A. Nunes Amaral, 2025. "Open-source computational pipeline flags instances of acute respiratory distress syndrome in mechanically ventilated adult patients," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 16(1), pages 1-17, December.
    5. Lin Lu & Laurent Dercle & Binsheng Zhao & Lawrence H. Schwartz, 2021. "Deep learning for the prediction of early on-treatment response in metastatic colorectal cancer from serial medical imaging," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-11, December.
    6. Rawan Omar & Sooyun Caroline Tavolacci & Lathan Liou & Dillan F Villavisanis & Yoav Y Broza & Hossam Haick, 2024. "Real-time prognostic biomarkers for predicting in-hospital mortality and cardiac complications in COVID-19 patients," PLOS Global Public Health, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(3), pages 1-17, March.
    7. Yiwang Zhou & Peter X.K. Song & Haoda Fu, 2021. "Net benefit index: Assessing the influence of a biomarker for individualized treatment rules," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 77(4), pages 1254-1264, December.
    8. Konstantina Chalkou & Andrew J. Vickers & Fabio Pellegrini & Andrea Manca & Georgia Salanti, 2023. "Decision Curve Analysis for Personalized Treatment Choice between Multiple Options," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(3), pages 337-349, April.
    9. Thibaut Vaulet & Priyanka Koshy & Karolien Wellekens & Olivier Aubert & Charlotte Bottomley & Jasper Callemeyn & Evert Cleenders & Maarten Coemans & Lynn Cornell & Aiko P. J. de Vries & Gillian Divard, 2025. "Continuous indices to assess the phenotypic spectrum of kidney transplant rejection," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 16(1), pages 1-14, December.
    10. Adam Maidman & Lan Wang, 2018. "New semiparametric method for predicting high‐cost patients," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 74(3), pages 1104-1111, September.
    11. repec:plo:pmed00:1002019 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Mehmet Eren Ahsen & Mehmet U. S. Ayvaci & Radha Mookerjee & Gustavo Stolovitzky, 2025. "Economics of AI and human task sharing for decision making in screening mammography," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 16(1), pages 1-10, December.
    13. Dexin Chen & Meiting Fu & Liangjie Chi & Liyan Lin & Jiaxin Cheng & Weisong Xue & Chenyan Long & Wei Jiang & Xiaoyu Dong & Jian Sui & Dajia Lin & Jianping Lu & Shuangmu Zhuo & Side Liu & Guoxin Li & G, 2022. "Prognostic and predictive value of a pathomics signature in gastric cancer," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-13, December.
    14. Jing Sun & Yue Liu & Jianhui Zhao & Bin Lu & Siyun Zhou & Wei Lu & Jingsun Wei & Yeting Hu & Xiangxing Kong & Junshun Gao & Hong Guan & Junli Gao & Qian Xiao & Xue Li, 2024. "Plasma proteomic and polygenic profiling improve risk stratification and personalized screening for colorectal cancer," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-10, December.
    15. Anirudh Tomer & Daan Nieboer & Monique J. Roobol & Ewout W. Steyerberg & Dimitris Rizopoulos, 2019. "Personalized schedules for surveillance of low‐risk prostate cancer patients," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 75(1), pages 153-162, March.
    16. Bernd Lütkenhöner & Türker Basel, 2013. "Predictive Modeling for Diagnostic Tests with High Specificity, but Low Sensitivity: A Study of the Glycerol Test in Patients with Suspected Menière’s Disease," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(11), pages 1-12, November.
    17. Linke Li & Hawre Jalal & Anna Heath, 2024. "Accurate EVSI Estimation for Nonlinear Models Using the Gaussian Approximation Method," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 44(7), pages 787-801, October.
    18. Shamil D. Cooray & Lihini A. Wijeyaratne & Georgia Soldatos & John Allotey & Jacqueline A. Boyle & Helena J. Teede, 2020. "The Unrealised Potential for Predicting Pregnancy Complications in Women with Gestational Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-20, April.
    19. Haitham Tuffaha & Claire Rothery & Natalia Kunst & Chris Jackson & Mark Strong & Stephen Birch, 2021. "A Review of Web-Based Tools for Value-of-Information Analysis," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 19(5), pages 645-651, September.
    20. Minta Thomas & Yu-Ru Su & Elisabeth A. Rosenthal & Lori C. Sakoda & Stephanie L. Schmit & Maria N. Timofeeva & Zhishan Chen & Ceres Fernandez-Rozadilla & Philip J. Law & Neil Murphy & Robert Carreras-, 2023. "Combining Asian and European genome-wide association studies of colorectal cancer improves risk prediction across racial and ethnic populations," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-13, December.
    21. Khushal Arjan & Lui G Forni & Richard M Venn & David Hunt & Luke Eliot Hodgson, 2021. "Clinical decision-making in older adults following emergency admission to hospital. Derivation and validation of a risk stratification score: OPERA," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(3), pages 1-12, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:sae:medema:v:45:y:2025:i:3:p:232-244. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.