Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41224138›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical epidemiology2026

Behavior of prediction performance metrics with rare events.

Emily Minus, R Yates Coley, Susan M Shortreed, Brian D Williamson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Emily MinusDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
R Yates ColeyBiostatistics Division, Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA; Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Susan M ShortreedDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; Biostatistics Division, Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
Brian D WilliamsonDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; Biostatistics Division, Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA; Vaccine and Infectious Disease Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, WA, USA. Electronic address: brian.d.williamson@kp.org.

Funding

SSRI's and SuicidalityU19MH092201 · NIMH · KAISER FOUNDATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI SIMON, GREGORY E. · 2010 to 2018
$19.5M
Whose Depression Are We Measuring?: Considering the role of place on Black women’s depression outcomesU19MH121738 · NIMH · KAISER FOUNDATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI SIMON, GREGORY E. · 2019 to 2023
$10.6M
Innovative methods to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in suicide risk predictionR01MH125821 · NIMH · KAISER FOUNDATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI COLEY, REBECCA YATES · 2022 to 2025
$1.6M
NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH125821NIMH NIH HHS U19 MH092201NIMH NIH HHS U19 MH121738
6 · The paper itself

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

Area Under CurveSuicide, AttemptedComputer SimulationHumansModels, StatisticalPredictive Value of TestsROC CurveArea under the receiver operating characteristic curveClassificationMachine learningModel evaluationPredictionRare outcome

Identifiers

PMID41224138
PMCPMC12667734

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.