ArticleBMC medical research methodology2024
Pitfalls of single-study external validation illustrated with a model predicting functional outcome after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Risk stratification and cross-center prediction of thoracoabdominal 6D setup errors.BMC cancer · 2026Article
- Development and External Validation of an Interpretable Machine Learning-Based Prediction Model for Depressive Symptoms in Patients With Obstructive Sleep Apnea: A Multicenter Study.Brain and behavior · 2026Article
- Association of the systemic immune-inflammation index with consciousness disturbance in cerebral venous sinus thrombosis: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Explainable machine learning for 2-year functional outcomes in older adults with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage in North China: external validation and health-system context.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Article
- Inflammation, coagulation, and nutritional reserves refine 90-day prognostic stratification after ruptured intracranial aneurysm repair.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- Construction and validation of a risk prediction model for perianal infection in HSCT patients: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Grading Scores for Identifying Patients at Risk of Delayed Cerebral Ischemia and Neurological Outcome in Spontaneous Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: A Comparison of Receiver Operator Curve Analysis.Neurocritical care · 2025Article
- Prediction model for early neurological deterioration in large artery atherosclerotic stroke.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrediction models are often externally validated with data from a single study or cohort. However, the interpretation of performance estimates obtained with single-study external validation is not as straightforward as assumed. We aimed to illustrate this by conducting a large number of external validations of a prediction model for functional outcome in subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) patients.
methodsWe used data from the Subarachnoid Hemorrhage International Trialists (SAHIT) data repository (n = 11,931, 14 studies) to refit the SAHIT model for predicting a dichotomous functional outcome (favorable versus unfavorable), with the (extended) Glasgow Outcome Scale or modified Rankin Scale score, at a minimum of three months after discharge. We performed leave-one-cluster-out cross-validation to mimic the process of multiple single-study external validations. Each study represented one cluster. In each of these validations, we assessed discrimination with Harrell's c-statistic and calibration with calibration plots, the intercepts, and the slopes. We used random effects meta-analysis to obtain the (reference) mean performance estimates and between-study heterogeneity (I
resultsAcross 14 single-study external validations, model performance was highly variable. The mean c-statistic was 0.74 (95%CI 0.70-0.78, range 0.52-0.84, I
conclusionsWe demonstrate two potential pitfalls in the interpretation of model performance with single-study external validation. With single-study external validation. (1) model performance is highly variable and depends on the choice of validation data and (2) no insight is provided into generalizability or transportability of the model that is needed to guide local implementation. As such, a single single-study external validation can easily be misinterpreted and lead to a false appreciation of the clinical prediction model. Cross-validation is better equipped to address these pitfalls.
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.