Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39118007›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2024

Pitfalls of single-study external validation illustrated with a model predicting functional outcome after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage.

Jordi de Winkel, Carolien C H M Maas, Bob Roozenbeek, David van Klaveren, Hester F Lingsma

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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.

Jordi de WinkelDepartment of Neurology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, 40 Doctor Molewaterplein, P.O. Box 2040, Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, 3015 GD, The Netherlands. j.dewinkel@erasmusmc.nl.
Carolien C H M MaasDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands.
Bob RoozenbeekDepartment of Neurology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, 40 Doctor Molewaterplein, P.O. Box 2040, Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, 3015 GD, The Netherlands.
David van KlaverenDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands.
Hester F LingsmaDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Subarachnoid HemorrhageFemaleGlasgow Outcome ScaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedModels, StatisticalPrognosisReproducibility of ResultsIntracranial AneurysmLogistic RegressionPrognosisSubarachnoid HemorrhageValidation Study

Identifiers

PMID39118007
PMCPMC11308226

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.