ArticleJournal of clinical epidemiology2026
Behavior of prediction performance metrics with rare events.
Article in Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2026. 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.
- Machine Learning-Based Frailty Prediction and Classification in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Systematic Review of Validation, Explainability, and Implementation Readiness.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Inference on summaries of a model-agnostic longitudinal variable importance trajectory with application to suicide prevention.The annals of applied statistics · 2026Article
- Incidence and independent risk factors for postoperative delirium in ICU patients after cardiopulmonary bypass cardiac surgery: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
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
Abstract
objectiveArea under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) is commonly reported alongside prediction models for binary outcomes. Recent articles have raised concerns that AUC might be a misleading measure of prediction performance in the rare event setting. This setting is common since many events of clinical importance are rare. We aimed to determine whether the bias and variance of AUC are driven by the number of events or the event rate. We also investigated the behavior of other commonly used measures of prediction performance, including positive predictive value, accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. STUDY DESIGN AND
settingWe conducted a simulation study to determine when or whether AUC is unstable in the rare event setting by varying the size of datasets used to train and evaluate prediction models. This plasmode simulation study was based on data from the Mental Health Research Network; the data contained 149 predictors and the outcome of interest, suicide attempt, which had event rate 0.92% in the original dataset.
resultsOur results indicate that poor AUC behavior-as measured by empirical bias, variability of cross-validated AUC estimates, and empirical coverage of confidence intervals-is driven by the number of events in a rare-event setting, not event rate. Performance of sensitivity is driven by the number of events, while that of specificity is driven by the number of nonevents. Other measures, including positive predictive value and accuracy, depend on the event rate even in large samples.
conclusionAUC is reliable in the rare event setting provided that the total number of events is moderately large; in our simulations, we observed near zero bias with 1000 events. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Predicting self-harm or suicidal behavior is medically important for guiding clinicians in providing care to patients. Several research teams have developed and evaluated suicide risk prediction models based on health records data. Part of evaluating these models is calculating area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and other prediction performance metrics. Self-harm and suicide are rare events. Recent research has raised concerns with using AUC in rare-event settings. We aimed to determine whether having a sufficiently large dataset could remove these concerns. In our experiments, we found that AUC can be used without concern in settings with 1000 events or more. Thus, AUC is a valid measure of suicide risk prediction model performance in many large healthcare databases.
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.