Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37345680›Full record

ArticleMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2023

Value-of-Information Analysis for External Validation of Risk Prediction Models.

Mohsen Sadatsafavi, Tae Yoon Lee, Laure Wynants, Andrew J Vickers, Paul Gustafson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Expected Value of Sample Information Calculations for Risk Prediction Model Validation.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Closed-Form Solution of the Unit Normal Loss Integral in 2 Dimensions, with Application in Value-of-Information Analysis.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2023
    Article
  6. 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

5 authors.

Mohsen SadatsafaviRespiratory Evaluation Sciences Program, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0419-7862
Tae Yoon LeeRespiratory Evaluation Sciences Program, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-6672-4317
Laure WynantsDepartment of Epidemiology, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Andrew J VickersDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1525-6503
Paul GustafsonDepartment of Statistics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-2375-5006

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA previously developed risk prediction model needs to be validated before being used in a new population. The finite size of the validation sample entails that there is uncertainty around model performance. We apply value-of-information (VoI) methodology to quantify the consequence of uncertainty in terms of net benefit (NB).

methodsWe define the expected value of perfect information (EVPI) for model validation as the expected loss in NB due to not confidently knowing which of the alternative decisions confers the highest NB. We propose bootstrap-based and asymptotic methods for EVPI computations and conduct simulation studies to compare their performance. In a case study, we use the non-US subsets of a clinical trial as the development sample for predicting mortality after myocardial infarction and calculate the validation EVPI for the US subsample.

resultsThe computation methods generated similar EVPI values in simulation studies. EVPI generally declined with larger samples. In the case study, at the prespecified threshold of 0.02, the best decision with current information would be to use the model, with an incremental NB of 0.0020 over treating all. At this threshold, the EVPI was 0.0005 (relative EVPI = 25%). When scaled to the annual number of heart attacks in the US, the expected NB loss due to uncertainty was equal to 400 true positives or 19,600 false positives, indicating the value of further model validation.

conclusionVoI methods can be applied to the NB calculated during external validation of clinical prediction models. While uncertainty does not directly affect the clinical implications of NB findings, validation EVPI provides an objective perspective to the need for further validation and can be reported alongside NB in external validation studies. HIGHLIGHTS: External validation is a critical step when transporting a risk prediction model to a new setting, but the finite size of the validation sample creates uncertainty about the performance of the model.In decision theory, such uncertainty is associated with loss of net benefit because it can prevent one from identifying whether the use of the model is beneficial over alternative strategies.We define the expected value of perfect information for external validation as the expected loss in net benefit by not confidently knowing if the use of the model is net beneficial.The adoption of a model for a new population should be based on its expected net benefit; independently, value-of-information methods can be used to decide whether further validation studies are warranted.

Indexed as

UncertaintyCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansbayesian statisticsdecision theoryprecision medicinepredictive analyticsvalue of information

Identifiers

PMID37345680
PMCPMC10336716

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.