Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41402895›Full record

ArticleDiagnostic and prognostic research2025

A decomposition of Fisher's information to inform sample size for developing or updating fair and precise clinical prediction models - part 2: time-to-event outcomes.

Richard D Riley, Gary S Collins, Lucinda Archer, Rebecca Whittle, Amardeep Legha, Laura Kirton, Paula Dhiman, Mohsen Sadatsafavi, Nicola J Adderley, Joseph Alderman and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostic and prognostic research, 2025. 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. Article
  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

12 authors.

Richard D RileyDepartment of Applied Health Sciences, School of Health Sciences, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. r.d.riley@bham.ac.uk.
Gary S CollinsNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK.
Lucinda ArcherDepartment of Applied Health Sciences, School of Health Sciences, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Rebecca WhittleDepartment of Applied Health Sciences, School of Health Sciences, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Amardeep LeghaDepartment of Applied Health Sciences, School of Health Sciences, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Laura KirtonCancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, College of Medical and Dental Sciences,, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Paula DhimanNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK.
Mohsen SadatsafaviRespiratory Evaluation Sciences Program, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Nicola J AdderleyDepartment of Applied Health Sciences, School of Health Sciences, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Joseph AldermanNational Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, Birmingham, UK.
Glen P MartinDivision of Informatics, Imaging and Data Science, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Joie EnsorDepartment of Applied Health Sciences, School of Health Sciences, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK C49297/A27294Cancer Research UK CTUQQR-Dec22/100006Cancer Research UK PRCPJT-Nov21\100021EPSRC EP/Y018516/1Medical Research Council MR/Z503873/1MRC MR/T025085/1National Institute for Health and Care Research NIHR303331
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhen developing a clinical prediction model using time-to-event data (i.e. with censoring and different lengths of follow-up), previous research focuses on the sample size needed to minimise overfitting and precisely estimating the overall risk. However, instability of individual-level risk estimates may still be large.

methodsWe propose using a decomposition of Fisher's information matrix to help examine and calculate the sample size required for developing a model that aims for precise and fair risk estimates. We propose a six-step process which can be used either before data collection or when an existing dataset is available. Steps 1 to 5 require researchers to specify the overall risk in the target population at a key time-point of interest: an assumed pragmatic 'core model' in the form of an exponential regression model, the (anticipated) joint distribution of core predictors included in that model and the distribution of censoring times. The 'core model' can be specified directly or based on a specified C-index and relative effects of (standardised) predictors. The joint distribution of predictors may be available directly in an existing dataset, in a pilot study or in a synthetic dataset provided by other researchers.

resultsWe derive closed-form solutions that decompose the variance of an individual's estimated event rate into Fisher's unit information matrix, predictor values and total sample size; this allows researchers to calculate and examine uncertainty distributions around individual risk estimates and misclassification probabilities for specified sample sizes. We provide an illustrative example in breast cancer and emphasise the importance of clinical context, including any risk thresholds for decision-making, and examine fairness concerns for pre- and postmenopausal women. Lastly, in two empirical evaluations, we provide reassurance that uncertainty interval widths based on our exponential approach are close to using more flexible parametric models.

conclusionsOur approach allows users to identify the (target) sample size required to develop a prediction model for time-to-event outcomes, via the pmstabilityss module. It aims to facilitate models with improved trust, reliability and fairness in individual-level predictions.

Identifiers

PMID41402895
PMCPMC12709744

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.