Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29250812›Full record

ArticleStatistics in medicine2018

A multiple-model generalisation of updating clinical prediction models.

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

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistics in medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Evidence synthesis in prognosis research.Diagnostic and prognostic research · 2019
    Article
  9. Review
  10. 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 MartinFarr Institute, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3410-9472
Mamas A MamasFarr Institute, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.
Niels PeekFarr Institute, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.
Iain BuchanFarr Institute, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.
Matthew SperrinFarr Institute, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5351-9960

Funding

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

Abstract

There is growing interest in developing clinical prediction models (CPMs) to aid local healthcare decision-making. Frequently, these CPMs are developed in isolation across different populations, with repetitive de novo derivation a common modelling strategy. However, this fails to utilise all available information and does not respond to changes in health processes through time and space. Alternatively, model updating techniques have previously been proposed that adjust an existing CPM to suit the new population, but these techniques are restricted to a single model. Therefore, we aimed to develop a generalised method for updating and aggregating multiple CPMs. The proposed "hybrid method" re-calibrates multiple CPMs using stacked regression while concurrently revising specific covariates using individual participant data (IPD) under a penalised likelihood. The performance of the hybrid method was compared with existing methods in a clinical example of mortality risk prediction after transcatheter aortic valve implantation, and in 2 simulation studies. The simulation studies explored the effect of sample size and between-population-heterogeneity on the method, with each representing a situation of having multiple distinct CPMs and 1 set of IPD. When the sample size of the IPD was small, stacked regression and the hybrid method had comparable but highest performance across modelling methods. Conversely, in large IPD samples, development of a new model and the hybrid method gave the highest performance. Hence, the proposed strategy can inform the choice between utilising existing CPMs or developing a model de novo, thereby incorporating IPD, existing research, and prior (clinical) knowledge into the modelling strategy.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesLinear ModelsLogistic ModelsAgedAged, 80 and overAortic ValveAortic Valve StenosisComputer SimulationFemaleHumansMaleProbabilityRegression AnalysisReproducibility of ResultsRisk AssessmentTranscatheter Aortic Valve Replacementclinical prediction modelslogistic regressionmodel aggregationmodel updatingstacked regressionvalidation

Identifiers

PMID29250812
PMCPMC5873448

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.