ArticleBMC medical research methodology2025
Assessing the representativeness of large medical data using population stability index.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Measurement of Treatment Adequacy Influences Racial Disparities Estimates in Endometrial Cancer Care.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2026Article
- Rapid and noninvasive artificial intelligence-assisted diagnostic method for oral squamous cell carcinoma.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUnderstanding sample representativeness is key to interpreting findings from epidemiological research and applying these findings to broader populations. Though techniques for assessing sample representativeness are available, they rely on access to raw data detailing the population of interest which are often not readily available and may not be suitable for comparing large datasets. In reality, population-based data are often only available in an aggregated format. In this study, we aimed to examine the capability of population stability index (PSI), a popular metric to assess data drift for artificial intelligence studies, in detecting sample differences using population-based data.
methodWe obtained United States cancer statistics from the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. We queried the SEER 17-registry research database to obtain cancer count data by age, sex, and cancer site groups from the rate sessions of the SEER*State incidence database for 2000 and 2015 - 2020. We then calculated PSI scores to estimate yearly data distribution shift from 2015 to 2020 for each variable. We compared the PSI results to the Chi-Square and Cramér's V tests for the same comparisons.
resultsScores for PSI comparing age, sex, and cancer site distribution between years ranged widely from 2.96 to less than 0.01. In line with our expectations, we found moderate to substantial differences in cancer population characteristics between 2000 and all other included years using PSI. Despite small effect sizes (Cramér's V 0.01 - 0.09), Chi-Square tests were significant for most comparisons, indicating likely type-I error caused by our large sample.
conclusionsPopulation stability index can be used to examine sample differences in healthcare studies where only binned data are available or where large datasets may reduce the reliability of other metrics. Inclusion of PSI in epidemiological research will give greater confidence that results are representative of the general population.
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.