Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41992907›Full record

ArticleResearch synthesis methods2026

Clustered flexible calibration plots for binary outcomes using random effects modeling.

Lasai Barreñada, Bavo De Cock Campo, Laure Wynants, Ben Van Calster

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research synthesis methods, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Prediction of allergic disease trajectories from birth up to adolescence.Pediatric allergy and immunology : official publication of the European Society of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology · 2026
    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.

Lasai BarreñadaDepartment of Development and regeneration, https://ror.org/05f950310KU Leuven, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8020-0210
Bavo De Cock CampoDepartment of Metabolism, Digestion and Reproduction, Imperial College, United Kingdom.
Laure WynantsDepartment of Development and regeneration, https://ror.org/05f950310KU Leuven, Belgium.
Ben Van CalsterDepartment of Development and regeneration, https://ror.org/05f950310KU Leuven, Belgium.

Funding

KU Leuven C24M/20/064
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evaluation of clinical prediction models across multiple clusters, whether centers or datasets, is becoming increasingly common. A comprehensive evaluation includes an assessment of the agreement between the estimated risks and the observed outcomes, also known as calibration. Calibration is of utmost importance for clinical decision making with prediction models, and it often varies between clusters. We present three approaches to take clustering into account when evaluating calibration: (1) clustered group calibration (CG-C), (2) two-stage meta-analysis calibration (2MA-C), and (3) mixed model calibration (MIX-C), which can obtain flexible calibration plots with random effects modeling and provide confidence interval (CI) and prediction interval (PI). As a case example, we externally validate a model to estimate the risk that an ovarian tumor is malignant in multiple centers (

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalAlgorithmsCalibrationCluster AnalysisClustering AlgorithmsComputer SimulationConfidence IntervalsFemaleHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicOvarian NeoplasmsPrediction AlgorithmsReproducibility of ResultsBinary OutcomesCalibrationClustered DataMeta-analysisModel validationprediction models

Identifiers

PMID41992907
PMCPMC13126218

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.