Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31148207›Full record

ArticleStatistics in medicine2019

Impact of predictor measurement heterogeneity across settings on the performance of prediction models: A measurement error perspective.

K Luijken, R H H Groenwold, B Van Calster, E W Steyerberg, M van Smeden

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistics in medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Prevalence of Hypertension in Venezuela: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2026
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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.

K LuijkenDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5192-8368
R H H GroenwoldDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9238-6999
B Van CalsterDepartment of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1613-7450
E W SteyerbergDepartment of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7787-0122
M van SmedenDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5529-1541

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It is widely acknowledged that the predictive performance of clinical prediction models should be studied in patients that were not part of the data in which the model was derived. Out-of-sample performance can be hampered when predictors are measured differently at derivation and external validation. This may occur, for instance, when predictors are measured using different measurement protocols or when tests are produced by different manufacturers. Although such heterogeneity in predictor measurement between derivation and validation data is common, the impact on the out-of-sample performance is not well studied. Using analytical and simulation approaches, we examined out-of-sample performance of prediction models under various scenarios of heterogeneous predictor measurement. These scenarios were defined and clarified using an established taxonomy of measurement error models. The results of our simulations indicate that predictor measurement heterogeneity can induce miscalibration of prediction and affects discrimination and overall predictive accuracy, to extents that the prediction model may no longer be considered clinically useful. The measurement error taxonomy was found to be helpful in identifying and predicting effects of heterogeneous predictor measurements between settings of prediction model derivation and validation. Our work indicates that homogeneity of measurement strategies across settings is of paramount importance in prediction research.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalBiostatisticsComputer SimulationHumansLogistic ModelsMonte Carlo MethodPredictive Value of TestsValidation Studies as TopicBrier scorecalibrationdiscriminationexternal validationmeasurement errormeasurement heterogeneityprediction model

Identifiers

PMID31148207
PMCPMC6619392

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.