Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33745449›Full record

ArticleDiagnostic and prognostic research2021

Adaptive sample size determination for the development of clinical prediction models.

Evangelia Christodoulou, Maarten van Smeden, Michael Edlinger, Dirk Timmerman, Maria Wanitschek, Ewout W Steyerberg, Ben Van Calster

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostic and prognostic research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Uncertainty and the Value of Information in Risk Prediction Modeling.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2022
    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

7 authors.

Evangelia ChristodoulouDepartment of Development & Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Maarten van SmedenJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Michael EdlingerDepartment of Development & Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Dirk TimmermanDepartment of Development & Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Maria WanitschekUniversity Clinic of Internal Medicine III - Cardiology and Angiology, Tirol Kliniken, Innsbruck, Austria.
Ewout W SteyerbergDepartment of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.
Ben Van CalsterDepartment of Development & Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. ben.vancalster@kuleuven.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1613-7450

Funding

Internal Funds KU Leuven C24/15/037Research Foundation - Flanders (FWO) G0B4716N
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe suggest an adaptive sample size calculation method for developing clinical prediction models, in which model performance is monitored sequentially as new data comes in.

methodsWe illustrate the approach using data for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer (n = 5914, 33% event fraction) and obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD; n = 4888, 44% event fraction). We used logistic regression to develop a prediction model consisting only of a priori selected predictors and assumed linear relations for continuous predictors. We mimicked prospective patient recruitment by developing the model on 100 randomly selected patients, and we used bootstrapping to internally validate the model. We sequentially added 50 random new patients until we reached a sample size of 3000 and re-estimated model performance at each step. We examined the required sample size for satisfying the following stopping rule: obtaining a calibration slope ≥ 0.9 and optimism in the c-statistic (or AUC) < = 0.02 at two consecutive sample sizes. This procedure was repeated 500 times. We also investigated the impact of alternative modeling strategies: modeling nonlinear relations for continuous predictors and correcting for bias on the model estimates (Firth's correction).

resultsBetter discrimination was achieved in the ovarian cancer data (c-statistic 0.9 with 7 predictors) than in the CAD data (c-statistic 0.7 with 11 predictors). Adequate calibration and limited optimism in discrimination was achieved after a median of 450 patients (interquartile range 450-500) for the ovarian cancer data (22 events per parameter (EPP), 20-24) and 850 patients (750-900) for the CAD data (33 EPP, 30-35). A stricter criterion, requiring AUC optimism < = 0.01, was met with a median of 500 (23 EPP) and 1500 (59 EPP) patients, respectively. These sample sizes were much higher than the well-known 10 EPP rule of thumb and slightly higher than a recently published fixed sample size calculation method by Riley et al. Higher sample sizes were required when nonlinear relationships were modeled, and lower sample sizes when Firth's correction was used.

conclusionsAdaptive sample size determination can be a useful supplement to fixed a priori sample size calculations, because it allows to tailor the sample size to the specific prediction modeling context in a dynamic fashion.

Indexed as

Adaptive designClinical prediction modelsEvents per variableModel developmentModel validationSample size

Identifiers

PMID33745449
PMCPMC7983402

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.