ArticleStatistics in medicine2026
Validation of a Risk-Prediction Model in the Presence of Outcome Misclassification.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Detecting Uncoded Self-Harm in Veterans' Electronic Health Records Using Positive and Unlabeled Learning: Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 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
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
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.