Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36550534›Full record

ArticleDiagnostic and prognostic research2022

Targeted validation: validating clinical prediction models in their intended population and setting.

Matthew Sperrin, Richard D Riley, Gary S Collins, Glen P Martin

Abstract readLetter
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostic and prognostic research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

58 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  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

4 authors.

Matthew SperrinDivision of Informatics, Imaging and Data Science, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. matthew.sperrin@manchester.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5351-9960
Richard D RileyInstitute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Gary S CollinsCentre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Glen P MartinDivision of Informatics, Imaging and Data Science, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 27294Medical Research Council MR/T025085/1Medical Research Council MR/V038168/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical prediction models must be appropriately validated before they can be used. While validation studies are sometimes carefully designed to match an intended population/setting of the model, it is common for validation studies to take place with arbitrary datasets, chosen for convenience rather than relevance. We call estimating how well a model performs within the intended population/setting "targeted validation". Use of this term sharpens the focus on the intended use of a model, which may increase the applicability of developed models, avoid misleading conclusions, and reduce research waste. It also exposes that external validation may not be required when the intended population for the model matches the population used to develop the model; here, a robust internal validation may be sufficient, especially if the development dataset was large.

Indexed as

Clinical prediction modelGeneralisabilityValidation

Identifiers

PMID36550534
PMCPMC9773429

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.