Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28056835›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2017

Clinical prediction in defined populations: a simulation study investigating when and how to aggregate existing models.

Glen P Martin, Mamas A Mamas, Niels Peek, Iain Buchan, Matthew Sperrin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Evidence synthesis in prognosis research.Diagnostic and prognostic research · 2019
    Article
  9. 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

5 authors.

Glen P MartinHealth e-Research Centre, University of Manchester, Vaughan House, Portsmouth Street, M13 9GB, Manchester, UK. glen.martin@manchester.ac.uk.
Mamas A MamasHealth e-Research Centre, University of Manchester, Vaughan House, Portsmouth Street, M13 9GB, Manchester, UK.
Niels PeekHealth e-Research Centre, University of Manchester, Vaughan House, Portsmouth Street, M13 9GB, Manchester, UK.
Iain BuchanHealth e-Research Centre, University of Manchester, Vaughan House, Portsmouth Street, M13 9GB, Manchester, UK.
Matthew SperrinHealth e-Research Centre, University of Manchester, Vaughan House, Portsmouth Street, M13 9GB, Manchester, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_13042Medical Research Council MR/K006665/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical prediction models (CPMs) are increasingly deployed to support healthcare decisions but they are derived inconsistently, in part due to limited data. An emerging alternative is to aggregate existing CPMs developed for similar settings and outcomes. This simulation study aimed to investigate the impact of between-population-heterogeneity and sample size on aggregating existing CPMs in a defined population, compared with developing a model de novo.

methodsSimulations were designed to mimic a scenario in which multiple CPMs for a binary outcome had been derived in distinct, heterogeneous populations, with potentially different predictors available in each. We then generated a new 'local' population and compared the performance of CPMs developed for this population by aggregation, using stacked regression, principal component analysis or partial least squares, with redevelopment from scratch using backwards selection and penalised regression.

resultsWhile redevelopment approaches resulted in models that were miscalibrated for local datasets of less than 500 observations, model aggregation methods were well calibrated across all simulation scenarios. When the size of local data was less than 1000 observations and between-population-heterogeneity was small, aggregating existing CPMs gave better discrimination and had the lowest mean square error in the predicted risks compared with deriving a new model. Conversely, given greater than 1000 observations and significant between-population-heterogeneity, then redevelopment outperformed the aggregation approaches. In all other scenarios, both aggregation and de novo derivation resulted in similar predictive performance.

conclusionThis study demonstrates a pragmatic approach to contextualising CPMs to defined populations. When aiming to develop models in defined populations, modellers should consider existing CPMs, with aggregation approaches being a suitable modelling strategy particularly with sparse data on the local population.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationDecision Support TechniquesModels, StatisticalHumansLeast-Squares AnalysisPrincipal Component AnalysisRegression AnalysisSample SizeClinical prediction modelsComputer simulationContextual heterogeneityModel aggregationValidation

Identifiers

PMID28056835
PMCPMC5217317

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.