Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36745113›Full record

ArticlePaediatric and perinatal epidemiology2023

Recalibrating prognostic models to improve predictions of in-hospital child mortality in resource-limited settings.

Morris Ogero, John Ndiritu, Rachel Sarguta, Timothy Tuti, Jalemba Aluvaala, Samuel Akech

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

6 authors.

Morris OgeroKenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI)-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.ORCID 0000-0003-0117-6289
John NdirituSchool of Mathematics, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya.
Rachel SargutaSchool of Mathematics, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya.
Timothy TutiKenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI)-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.
Jalemba AluvaalaKenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI)-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.ORCID 0000-0002-0851-3711
Samuel AkechKenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI)-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn an external validation study, model recalibration is suggested once there is evidence of poor model calibration but with acceptable discriminatory abilities. We identified four models, namely RISC-Malawi (Respiratory Index of Severity in Children) developed in Malawi, and three other predictive models developed in Uganda by Lowlaavar et al. (2016). These prognostic models exhibited poor calibration performance in the recent external validation study, hence the need for recalibration.

objectiveIn this study, we aim to recalibrate these models using regression coefficients updating strategy and determine how much their performances improve.

methodsWe used data collected by the Clinical Information Network from paediatric wards of 20 public county referral hospitals. Missing data were multiply imputed using chained equations. Model updating entailed adjustment of the model's calibration performance while the discriminatory ability remained unaltered. We used two strategies to adjust the model: intercept-only and the logistic recalibration method.

resultsEligibility criteria for the RISC-Malawi model were met in 50,669 patients, split into two sets: a model-recalibrating set (n = 30,343) and a test set (n = 20,326). For the Lowlaavar models, 10,782 patients met the eligibility criteria, of whom 6175 were used to recalibrate the models and 4607 were used to test the performance of the adjusted model. The intercept of the recalibrated RISC-Malawi model was 0.12 (95% CI 0.07, 0.17), while the slope of the same model was 1.08 (95% CI 1.03, 1.13). The performance of the recalibrated models on the test set suggested that no model met the threshold of a perfectly calibrated model, which includes a calibration slope of 1 and a calibration-in-the-large/intercept of 0.

conclusionsEven after model adjustment, the calibration performances of the 4 models did not meet the recommended threshold for perfect calibration. This finding is suggestive of models over/underestimating the predicted risk of in-hospital mortality, potentially harmful clinically. Therefore, researchers may consider other alternatives, such as ensemble techniques to combine these models into a meta-model to improve out-of-sample predictive performance.

Indexed as

Child MortalityResource-Limited SettingsChildHospital MortalityHospitalsHumansPrognosismodel recalibrationpaediatric mortalityprediction

Identifiers

PMID36745113
PMCPMC10946771

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.