ArticlePLOS digital health2022
Generalizability challenges of mortality risk prediction models: A retrospective analysis on a multi-center database.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 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
32 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- A multicenter machine learning model for predicting ICU mortality in mechanically ventilated patients: development and external validation.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- AI in Drug Discovery: Clinical Failures, Regulatory Reality, and the Validation Crisis Behind the Hype.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Development and validation of a machine learning-based prediction model for malnutrition risk in peritoneal dialysis patients: a multi‑center retrospective study.International urology and nephrology · 2026Article
- Emerging Urinary Biomarkers and Innovative Technologies for the Early Detection and Personalized Management of Chronic Kidney Disease.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Causal Discovery in Observational Medical Research: Scoping Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Domain-Adaptive MRI Learning Model for Precision Diagnosis of CNS Tumors.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Recurrent Pregnancy Loss: Current Evidence, Limitations, and Future Directions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Computer assisted verbal autopsy: comparing large language models to physicians for assigning causes to 6939 deaths in Sierra Leone from 2019-2022.BMC medicine · 2025Article
- Fast and robust invariant generalized linear models.Journal of computational and graphical statistics : a joint publication of American Statistical Association, Institute of Mathematical Statistics, Interface Foundation of North America · 2025Article
- Development and Validation of Echocardiography Artificial Intelligence Models: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Evaluating the impact of data biases on algorithmic fairness and clinical utility of machine learning models for prolonged opioid use prediction.JAMIA open · 2025Article
- Performance Drift in a Nationally Deployed Population Health Risk Algorithm in the US Veterans Health Administration.JAMA health forum · 2025Article
- Predicting near-complete pathological response to (chemo)radiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer: A federated learning study.Medical physics · 2025Article
- Revolutionizing hematological disorder diagnosis: unraveling the role of artificial intelligence.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
- Heterogeneity in mortality risk prediction: a study of vulnerable adults in the Canadian longitudinal study on aging.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2025Article
- FedWeight: mitigating covariate shift of federated learning on electronic health records data through patients re-weighting.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Step-by-step causal analysis of EHRs to ground decision-making.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- Enhancing LDD diagnosis with YOLOv9-AID: simultaneous detection of pfirrmann grading, disc herniation, HIZ, and Schmorl's nodules.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Modern predictive models require large amounts of data for training and evaluation, absence of which may result in models that are specific to certain locations, populations in them and clinical practices. Yet, best practices for clinical risk prediction models have not yet considered such challenges to generalizability. Here we ask whether population- and group-level performance of mortality prediction models vary significantly when applied to hospitals or geographies different from the ones in which they are developed. Further, what characteristics of the datasets explain the performance variation? In this multi-center cross-sectional study, we analyzed electronic health records from 179 hospitals across the US with 70,126 hospitalizations from 2014 to 2015. Generalization gap, defined as difference between model performance metrics across hospitals, is computed for area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and calibration slope. To assess model performance by the race variable, we report differences in false negative rates across groups. Data were also analyzed using a causal discovery algorithm "Fast Causal Inference" that infers paths of causal influence while identifying potential influences associated with unmeasured variables. When transferring models across hospitals, AUC at the test hospital ranged from 0.777 to 0.832 (1st-3rd quartile or IQR; median 0.801); calibration slope from 0.725 to 0.983 (IQR; median 0.853); and disparity in false negative rates from 0.046 to 0.168 (IQR; median 0.092). Distribution of all variable types (demography, vitals, and labs) differed significantly across hospitals and regions. The race variable also mediated differences in the relationship between clinical variables and mortality, by hospital/region. In conclusion, group-level performance should be assessed during generalizability checks to identify potential harms to the groups. Moreover, for developing methods to improve model performance in new environments, a better understanding and documentation of provenance of data and health processes are needed to identify and mitigate sources of variation.
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.