Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42657915›Full record

ArticleBiometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift2026

Comparison of Methods for Incorporating Related Data When Developing Clinical Prediction Models: A Simulation Study.

Haya Elayan, Matthew Sperrin, Glen P Martin, Frieder Braunschweig, Jonas Faxén, Joakim Alfredsson, David A Jenkins

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Haya ElayanDivision of Informatics, Imaging and Data Science, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8104-626X
Matthew SperrinDivision of Informatics, Imaging and Data Science, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5351-9960
Glen P MartinDivision of Informatics, Imaging and Data Science, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3410-9472
Frieder BraunschweigDepartment of Cardiology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Jonas FaxénDepartment of Physiology and Pharmacology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4727-5998
Joakim AlfredssonDepartment of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1415-7178
David A JenkinsDivision of Informatics, Imaging and Data Science, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical Prediction Models (CPMs) compute an individual's risk of an outcome, given a set of predictors. Guidance states CPMs should be constructed using data sampled from the target population. However, researchers might have access to ancillary data sets from different time points, countries, or healthcare settings, which could support model development. This study explores in which situations the ancillary data affect CPM performance, given potential heterogeneity. We conducted a simulation study to assess the impact of heterogeneity between the target and the ancillary data sets, and their relative sample size, on CPM performance. Target and ancillary populations were generated with varying degrees of heterogeneity. CPMs were developed using target-only logistic regression, logistic and intercept updating, and importance weighting using propensity scores. These models were evaluated on independent data using calibration, discrimination, and prediction stability. Also, a real-world case study was used as an illustrative example of application using the SWEDEHEART registry. Incorporating ancillary data generally improve CPM performance. Logistic and Intercept Recalibration often outperformed the target-only regression approach. However, Logistic Recalibration showed greater variability and instability in calibration, while Intercept Recalibration performed poorly under predictor-outcome association shift. The importance weighting method demonstrated consistent performance across a wide range of scenarios and appears to be a reliable alternative, particularly in practical settings where the presence and type of data distribution shift is often unknown.

Indexed as

BiometryModels, StatisticalHumansLogistic ModelsPrediction AlgorithmsClinical Prediction Modelsdata distribution shiftdata heterogeneityincluding related datasimulation study

Identifiers

PMID42657915
PMCPMC13520826

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.