Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39696411›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2024

Development, validation and recalibration of a prediction model for prediabetes: an EHR and NHANES-based study.

Nicholas J Casacchia, Kristin M Lenoir, Joseph Rigdon, Brian J Wells

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Nicholas J CasacchiaCenter for Value-Based Care Research, Primary Care Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave, G10, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA. casaccn@ccf.org.
Kristin M LenoirDivision of Public Health Sciences, Department of Biostatistics and Data Science, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, 525 Vine St, Winston-Salem, NC, 27101, USA.
Joseph RigdonDivision of Public Health Sciences, Department of Biostatistics and Data Science, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, 525 Vine St, Winston-Salem, NC, 27101, USA.
Brian J WellsDivision of Public Health Sciences, Department of Biostatistics and Data Science, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, 525 Vine St, Winston-Salem, NC, 27101, USA.

Funding

Wake Forest Clinical and Translational Science AwardUL1TR001420 · NCATS · WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI ARD, JAMY D, FOLEY, KRISTIE L · 2015 to 2023
$32.3M
J. NRSA Training Core (TL1)TL1TR003136 · NCATS · WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI TOOZE, JANET A. · 2019 to 2023
$2.1M
NCATS NIH HHS TL1 TR003136NCATS NIH HHS TL1TR003136NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001420NCATS NIH HHS UL1TR001420
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA prediction model that estimates the risk of elevated glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) was developed from electronic health record (EHR) data to identify adult patients at risk for prediabetes who may otherwise go undetected. We aimed to assess the internal performance of a new penalized regression model using the same EHR data and compare it to the previously developed stepdown approximation for predicting HbA1c ≥ 5.7%, the cut-off for prediabetes. Additionally, we sought to externally validate and recalibrate the approximation model using 2017-2020 pre-pandemic National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data.

methodsWe developed logistic regression models using EHR data through two approaches: the Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) and stepdown approximation. Internal validation was performed using the bootstrap method, with internal performance evaluated by the Brier score, C-statistic, calibration intercept and slope, and the integrated calibration index. We externally validated the approximation model by applying original model coefficients to NHANES, and we examined the approximation model's performance after recalibration in NHANES.

resultsThe EHR cohort included 22,635 patients, with 26% identified as having prediabetes. Both the LASSO and approximation models demonstrated similar discrimination in the EHR cohort, with optimism-corrected C-statistics of 0.760 and 0.763, respectively. The LASSO model included 23 predictor variables, while the approximation model contained 8. Among the 2,348 NHANES participants who met the inclusion criteria, 30.1% had prediabetes. External validation of the LASSO model was not possible due to the unavailability of some predictor variables. The approximation model discriminated well in the NHANES dataset, achieving a C-statistic of 0.787.

conclusionThe approximation method demonstrated comparable performance to LASSO in the EHR development cohort, making it a viable option for healthcare organizations with limited resources to collect a comprehensive set of candidate predictor variables. NHANES data may be suitable for externally validating a clinical prediction model developed with EHR data to assess generalizability to a nationally representative sample, depending on the model's intended use and the alignment of predictor variable definitions with those used in the model's original development.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsNutrition SurveysPrediabetic StateAdultAgedFemaleGlycated HemoglobinHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedModels, StatisticalRisk AssessmentGlycated HemoglobinCalibrationElectronic health recordsExternal validationLASSOLogistic regressionNHANESPrediabetesPrediction model

Identifiers

PMID39696411
PMCPMC11657225

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.