ArticleMethods of information in medicine2022
A Comparison of Methods to Detect Changes in Prediction Models.
Article in Methods of information in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Building effective collaborations for the study of COVID-19 across the severity spectrum.Nature immunology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrediction models inform decisions in many areas of medicine. Most models are fitted once and then applied to new (future) patients, despite the fact that model coefficients can vary over time due to changes in patients' clinical characteristics and disease risk. However, the optimal method to detect changes in model parameters has not been rigorously assessed.
methodsWe simulated data, informed by post-lung transplant mortality data and tested the following two approaches for detecting model change: (1) the "Direct Approach," it compares coefficients of the model refit on recent data to those at baseline; and (2) "Calibration Regression," it fits a logistic regression model of the log-odds of the observed outcomes versus the linear predictor from the baseline model (i.e., the log-odds of the predicted probabilities obtained from the baseline model) and tests whether the intercept and slope differ from 0 and 1, respectively. Four scenarios were simulated using logistic regression for binary outcomes as follows: (1) we fixed all model parameters, (2) we varied the outcome prevalence between 0.1 and 0.2, (3) we varied the coefficient of one of the ten predictors between 0.2 and 0.4, and (4) we varied the outcome prevalence and coefficient of one predictor simultaneously.
resultsCalibration regression tended to detect changes sooner than the Direct Approach, with better performance (e.g., larger proportion of true claims). When the sample size was large, both methods performed well. When two parameters changed simultaneously, neither method performed well.
conclusionNeither change detection method examined here proved optimal under all circumstances. However, our results suggest that if one is interested in detecting a change in overall incidence of an outcome (e.g., intercept), the Calibration Regression method may be superior to the Direct Approach. Conversely, if one is interested in detecting a change in other model covariates (e.g., slope), the Direct Approach may be superior.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.