Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26819631›Full record

ArticleBioData mining2016

The prediction accuracy of dynamic mixed-effects models in clustered data.

Brian S Finkelman, Benjamin French, Stephen E Kimmel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BioData mining, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. A Comparison of Methods to Detect Changes in Prediction Models.Methods of information in medicine · 2022
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Statistical Methods for Cohort Studies of CKD: Prediction Modeling.Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN · 2017
    Review
  8. Predicting prolonged dose titration in patients starting warfarin.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2016
    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.

Brian S FinkelmanCenter for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA USA ; Center for Therapeutic Effectiveness Research, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4348-8208
Benjamin FrenchCenter for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA USA.
Stephen E KimmelCenter for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA USA ; Center for Therapeutic Effectiveness Research, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA USA ; Department of Medicine, Cardiovascular Division, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA USA.

Funding

PREDICTORS OF ANTICOAGULATION CONTROL ON WARFARINR01HL066176 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI KIMMEL, STEPHEN E. · 2001 to 2012
$7.3M
Clinical and Genetic Predictors of Unstable Warfarin ResponseF30HL115992 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI FINKELMAN, BRIAN · 2012 to 2014
$100k
NHLBI NIH HHS F30 HL115992NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL066176
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical prediction models often fail to generalize in the context of clustered data, because most models fail to account for heterogeneity in outcome values and covariate effects across clusters. Furthermore, standard approaches for modeling clustered data, including generalized linear mixed-effects models, would not be expected to provide accurate predictions in novel clusters, because such predictions are typically based on the hypothetical mean cluster. We hypothesized that dynamic mixed-effects models, which incorporate data from previous predictions to refine the model for future predictions, would allow for cluster-specific predictions in novel clusters as the model is updated over time, thus improving overall model generalizability.

resultsWe quantified the potential gains in prediction accuracy from using a dynamic modeling strategy in a simulation study. Furthermore, because clinical prediction models in the context of clustered data often involve outcomes that are dependent on patient volume, we examined whether using dynamic mixed-effects models would be robust to misspecification of the volume-outcome relationship. Our results indicated that dynamic mixed-effects models led to substantial improvements in prediction accuracy in clustered populations over a broad range of conditions, and were uniformly superior to static models. In addition, dynamic mixed-effects models were particularly robust to misspecification of the volume-outcome relationship and to variation in the frequency of model updating. The extent of the improvement in prediction accuracy that was observed with dynamic mixed-effects models depended on the relative impact of fixed and random effects on the outcome as well as the degree of misspecification of model fixed effects.

conclusionsDynamic mixed-effects models led to substantial improvements in prediction model accuracy across a broad range of simulated conditions. Therefore, dynamic mixed-effects models could be a useful alternative to standard static models for improving the generalizability of clinical prediction models in the setting of clustered data, and, thus, well worth the logistical challenges that may accompany their implementation in practice.

Indexed as

Bayesian statisticsClustered dataDynamic modelingGeneralizabilityMixed-effects modelsPrediction

Identifiers

PMID26819631
PMCPMC4728760

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.