Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41930736›Full record

ArticleStatistics in medicine2026

Validation of a Risk-Prediction Model in the Presence of Outcome Misclassification.

Runjia Zou, Brian D Williamson, Susan M Shortreed, R Yates Coley

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Statistics in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Runjia ZouDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Brian D WilliamsonDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7024-548X
Susan M ShortreedDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
R Yates ColeyDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1708-4880

Funding

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 R01-MH125821NIMH NIH HHS U19-MH099201NIMH NIH HHS U19-MH121738
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Electronic health records (EHRs) provide a rich data source for building prediction models to improve the quality of care. However, EHR data are prone to measurement error, and outcomes used to evaluate prediction model performance may be misclassified. Comparing risk predictions to misclassified outcomes will result in unreliable estimates of a prediction model's performance. We propose a method that leverages a smaller chart review sample with gold-standard outcome measurements to adjust validation for outcome misclassification and provide more accurate prediction model evaluation. We derive formulae to estimate true positive rate (TPR), false positive rate (FPR), positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) in the presence of outcome misclassification. Different scenarios of misclassification are explored, including when the misclassification is independent or dependent on features, and when misclassification is unidirectional (e.g., only missed diagnoses) or bidirectional. In simulation studies, we compare the bias and 95% confidence interval coverage of performance estimates obtained using our proposed method to those estimated with misclassified outcomes (without accounting for misclassification) or in the smaller chart review sample. Simulation results indicate that, across all misclassification scenarios examined, our proposed estimates have good accuracy and improved precision. Outcome misclassification should be considered when evaluating a prediction model's performance in order to accurately inform decision-making about whether and how to use a clinical prediction model.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsModels, StatisticalArea Under CurveBiasComputer SimulationHumansPrediction AlgorithmsPredictive Learning ModelsPredictive Value of TestsRisk AssessmentROC Curveclassification accuracyclinical prediction modelmachine learningmeasurement errorROC curve

Identifiers

PMID41930736
PMCPMC13047735

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.