Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39963746›Full record

ArticleMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2025

Expected Value of Sample Information Calculations for Risk Prediction Model Validation.

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

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 2025. 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

5 authors.

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

Funding

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

Abstract

BackgroundThe purpose of external validation of a risk prediction model is to evaluate its performance before recommending it for use in a new population. Sample size calculations for such validation studies are currently based on classical inferential statistics around metrics of discrimination, calibration, and net benefit (NB). For NB as a measure of clinical utility, the relevance of inferential statistics is doubtful. Value-of-information methodology enables quantifying the value of collecting validation data in terms of expected gain in clinical utility.MethodsWe define the validation expected value of sample information (EVSI) as the expected gain in NB by procuring a validation sample of a given size. We propose 3 algorithms for EVSI computation and compare their face validity and computation time in simulation studies. In a case study, we use the non-US subset of a clinical trial to create a risk prediction model for short-term mortality after myocardial infarction and calculate validation EVSI at a range of sample sizes for the US population.ResultsComputation methods generated similar EVSI values in simulation studies, although they differed in numerical accuracy and computation times. At 2% risk threshold, procuring 1,000 observations for external validation, had an EVSI of 0.00101 in true-positive units or 0.04938 in false-positive units. Scaled by heart attack incidence in the United States, the population EVSI was 806 in true positives gained, or 39,500 in false positives averted, annually. Validation studies with >4,000 observations had diminishing returns, as the EVSIs were approaching their maximum possible value.ConclusionValue-of-information methodology quantifies the return on investment from conducting an external validation study and can provide a value-based perspective when designing such studies.HighlightsIn external validation studies of risk prediction models, the finite size of the validation sample leads to uncertain conclusions about the performance of the model. This uncertainty has hitherto been approached from a classical inferential perspective (e.g., confidence interval around the c-statistic).Correspondingly, sample size calculations for validation studies have been based on classical inferential statistics. For measures of clinical utility such as net benefit, the relevance of this approach is doubtful.This article defines the expected value of sample information (EVSI) for model validation and suggests algorithms for its computation. Validation EVSI quantifies the return on investment from conducting a validation study.Value-based approaches rooted in decision theory can complement contemporary study design and sample size calculation methods in predictive analytics.

Indexed as

Risk AssessmentSample SizeAlgorithmsComputer SimulationHumansMyocardial InfarctionReproducibility of ResultsBayesian statisticsrisk predictionuncertaintyvalue of information

Identifiers

PMID39963746
PMCPMC11894915

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.