Generalizability of Cardiovascular Disease Clinical Prediction Models: 158 Independent External Validations of 104 Unique Models

BACKGROUND: While clinical prediction models (CPMs) are used increasingly commonly to guide patient care, the performance and clinical utility of these CPMs in new patient cohorts is poorly understood. METHODS: We performed 158 external validations of 104 unique CPMs across 3 domains of cardiovascul...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:CIRCULATION-CARDIOVASCULAR QUALITY AND OUTCOMES 2022-04, Vol.15 (4), p.248-260
Hauptverfasser: Gulati, Gaurav, Upshaw, Jenica, Wessler, Benjamin S, Brazil, Riley J, Nelson, Jason, van Klaveren, David, Lundquist, Christine M, Park, Jinny G, McGinnes, Hannah, Steyerberg, Ewout W, Van Calster, Ben, Kent, David M
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 260
container_issue 4
container_start_page 248
container_title CIRCULATION-CARDIOVASCULAR QUALITY AND OUTCOMES
container_volume 15
creator Gulati, Gaurav
Upshaw, Jenica
Wessler, Benjamin S
Brazil, Riley J
Nelson, Jason
van Klaveren, David
Lundquist, Christine M
Park, Jinny G
McGinnes, Hannah
Steyerberg, Ewout W
Van Calster, Ben
Kent, David M
description BACKGROUND: While clinical prediction models (CPMs) are used increasingly commonly to guide patient care, the performance and clinical utility of these CPMs in new patient cohorts is poorly understood. METHODS: We performed 158 external validations of 104 unique CPMs across 3 domains of cardiovascular disease (primary prevention, acute coronary syndrome, and heart failure). Validations were performed in publicly available clinical trial cohorts and model performance was assessed using measures of discrimination, calibration, and net benefit. To explore potential reasons for poor model performance, CPM-clinical trial cohort pairs were stratified based on relatedness, a domain-specific set of characteristics to qualitatively grade the similarity of derivation and validation patient populations. We also examined the model-based C-statistic to assess whether changes in discrimination were because of differences in case-mix between the derivation and validation samples. The impact of model updating on model performance was also assessed. RESULTS: Discrimination decreased significantly between model derivation (0.76 [interquartile range 0.73-0.78]) and validation (0.64 [interquartile range 0.60-0.67], P
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>kuleuven</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_kuleuven_dspace_20_500_12942_704287</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>20_500_12942_704287</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-kuleuven_dspace_20_500_12942_7042873</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqVzDFPwzAQBWAPRaIF_sPNlYpsJ2la1tACAxIDdLWu8VU6sJzic6rCxE8nlfoDYHlv-d4bqbFZlmZW17q6VBORd63nhZ0XY_XzQJESBv7GLQfOX9DtoMHkuTugtH3ABPcshELQBI7cYoCXRJ7bzF2E585TkDsw1QKeoqc9DREzrI6ZUhzsZvj2eLJyuja6hLfInz2dp9fqYodB6ObcV2q6Xr02j7OPPlB_oOi87LElZ7WrtHbGLkvral3aRV38E9_-Gbt8zMUvjetgZw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Institutional Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Generalizability of Cardiovascular Disease Clinical Prediction Models: 158 Independent External Validations of 104 Unique Models</title><source>Lirias (KU Leuven Association)</source><source>American Heart Association Journals</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Gulati, Gaurav ; Upshaw, Jenica ; Wessler, Benjamin S ; Brazil, Riley J ; Nelson, Jason ; van Klaveren, David ; Lundquist, Christine M ; Park, Jinny G ; McGinnes, Hannah ; Steyerberg, Ewout W ; Van Calster, Ben ; Kent, David M</creator><creatorcontrib>Gulati, Gaurav ; Upshaw, Jenica ; Wessler, Benjamin S ; Brazil, Riley J ; Nelson, Jason ; van Klaveren, David ; Lundquist, Christine M ; Park, Jinny G ; McGinnes, Hannah ; Steyerberg, Ewout W ; Van Calster, Ben ; Kent, David M</creatorcontrib><description>BACKGROUND: While clinical prediction models (CPMs) are used increasingly commonly to guide patient care, the performance and clinical utility of these CPMs in new patient cohorts is poorly understood. METHODS: We performed 158 external validations of 104 unique CPMs across 3 domains of cardiovascular disease (primary prevention, acute coronary syndrome, and heart failure). Validations were performed in publicly available clinical trial cohorts and model performance was assessed using measures of discrimination, calibration, and net benefit. To explore potential reasons for poor model performance, CPM-clinical trial cohort pairs were stratified based on relatedness, a domain-specific set of characteristics to qualitatively grade the similarity of derivation and validation patient populations. We also examined the model-based C-statistic to assess whether changes in discrimination were because of differences in case-mix between the derivation and validation samples. The impact of model updating on model performance was also assessed. RESULTS: Discrimination decreased significantly between model derivation (0.76 [interquartile range 0.73-0.78]) and validation (0.64 [interquartile range 0.60-0.67], P&lt;0.001), but approximately half of this decrease was because of narrower case-mix in the validation samples. CPMs had better discrimination when tested in related compared with distantly related trial cohorts. Calibration slope was also significantly higher in related trial cohorts (0.77 [interquartile range, 0.59-0.90]) than distantly related cohorts (0.59 [interquartile range 0.43-0.73], P=0.001). When considering the full range of possible decision thresholds between half and twice the outcome incidence, 91% of models had a risk of harm (net benefit below default strategy) at some threshold; this risk could be reduced substantially via updating model intercept, calibration slope, or complete re-estimation. CONCLUSIONS: There are significant decreases in model performance when applying cardiovascular disease CPMs to new patient populations, resulting in substantial risk of harm. Model updating can mitigate these risks. Care should be taken when using CPMs to guide clinical decision-making.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1941-7705</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS &amp; WILKINS</publisher><ispartof>CIRCULATION-CARDIOVASCULAR QUALITY AND OUTCOMES, 2022-04, Vol.15 (4), p.248-260</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,315,780,784,27860</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Gulati, Gaurav</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Upshaw, Jenica</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wessler, Benjamin S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brazil, Riley J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nelson, Jason</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Klaveren, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lundquist, Christine M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Park, Jinny G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McGinnes, Hannah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Steyerberg, Ewout W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Van Calster, Ben</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kent, David M</creatorcontrib><title>Generalizability of Cardiovascular Disease Clinical Prediction Models: 158 Independent External Validations of 104 Unique Models</title><title>CIRCULATION-CARDIOVASCULAR QUALITY AND OUTCOMES</title><description>BACKGROUND: While clinical prediction models (CPMs) are used increasingly commonly to guide patient care, the performance and clinical utility of these CPMs in new patient cohorts is poorly understood. METHODS: We performed 158 external validations of 104 unique CPMs across 3 domains of cardiovascular disease (primary prevention, acute coronary syndrome, and heart failure). Validations were performed in publicly available clinical trial cohorts and model performance was assessed using measures of discrimination, calibration, and net benefit. To explore potential reasons for poor model performance, CPM-clinical trial cohort pairs were stratified based on relatedness, a domain-specific set of characteristics to qualitatively grade the similarity of derivation and validation patient populations. We also examined the model-based C-statistic to assess whether changes in discrimination were because of differences in case-mix between the derivation and validation samples. The impact of model updating on model performance was also assessed. RESULTS: Discrimination decreased significantly between model derivation (0.76 [interquartile range 0.73-0.78]) and validation (0.64 [interquartile range 0.60-0.67], P&lt;0.001), but approximately half of this decrease was because of narrower case-mix in the validation samples. CPMs had better discrimination when tested in related compared with distantly related trial cohorts. Calibration slope was also significantly higher in related trial cohorts (0.77 [interquartile range, 0.59-0.90]) than distantly related cohorts (0.59 [interquartile range 0.43-0.73], P=0.001). When considering the full range of possible decision thresholds between half and twice the outcome incidence, 91% of models had a risk of harm (net benefit below default strategy) at some threshold; this risk could be reduced substantially via updating model intercept, calibration slope, or complete re-estimation. CONCLUSIONS: There are significant decreases in model performance when applying cardiovascular disease CPMs to new patient populations, resulting in substantial risk of harm. Model updating can mitigate these risks. Care should be taken when using CPMs to guide clinical decision-making.</description><issn>1941-7705</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>FZOIL</sourceid><recordid>eNqVzDFPwzAQBWAPRaIF_sPNlYpsJ2la1tACAxIDdLWu8VU6sJzic6rCxE8nlfoDYHlv-d4bqbFZlmZW17q6VBORd63nhZ0XY_XzQJESBv7GLQfOX9DtoMHkuTugtH3ABPcshELQBI7cYoCXRJ7bzF2E585TkDsw1QKeoqc9DREzrI6ZUhzsZvj2eLJyuja6hLfInz2dp9fqYodB6ObcV2q6Xr02j7OPPlB_oOi87LElZ7WrtHbGLkvral3aRV38E9_-Gbt8zMUvjetgZw</recordid><startdate>202204</startdate><enddate>202204</enddate><creator>Gulati, Gaurav</creator><creator>Upshaw, Jenica</creator><creator>Wessler, Benjamin S</creator><creator>Brazil, Riley J</creator><creator>Nelson, Jason</creator><creator>van Klaveren, David</creator><creator>Lundquist, Christine M</creator><creator>Park, Jinny G</creator><creator>McGinnes, Hannah</creator><creator>Steyerberg, Ewout W</creator><creator>Van Calster, Ben</creator><creator>Kent, David M</creator><general>LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS &amp; WILKINS</general><scope>FZOIL</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202204</creationdate><title>Generalizability of Cardiovascular Disease Clinical Prediction Models: 158 Independent External Validations of 104 Unique Models</title><author>Gulati, Gaurav ; Upshaw, Jenica ; Wessler, Benjamin S ; Brazil, Riley J ; Nelson, Jason ; van Klaveren, David ; Lundquist, Christine M ; Park, Jinny G ; McGinnes, Hannah ; Steyerberg, Ewout W ; Van Calster, Ben ; Kent, David M</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-kuleuven_dspace_20_500_12942_7042873</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Gulati, Gaurav</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Upshaw, Jenica</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wessler, Benjamin S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brazil, Riley J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nelson, Jason</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Klaveren, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lundquist, Christine M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Park, Jinny G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McGinnes, Hannah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Steyerberg, Ewout W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Van Calster, Ben</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kent, David M</creatorcontrib><collection>Lirias (KU Leuven Association)</collection><jtitle>CIRCULATION-CARDIOVASCULAR QUALITY AND OUTCOMES</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Gulati, Gaurav</au><au>Upshaw, Jenica</au><au>Wessler, Benjamin S</au><au>Brazil, Riley J</au><au>Nelson, Jason</au><au>van Klaveren, David</au><au>Lundquist, Christine M</au><au>Park, Jinny G</au><au>McGinnes, Hannah</au><au>Steyerberg, Ewout W</au><au>Van Calster, Ben</au><au>Kent, David M</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Generalizability of Cardiovascular Disease Clinical Prediction Models: 158 Independent External Validations of 104 Unique Models</atitle><jtitle>CIRCULATION-CARDIOVASCULAR QUALITY AND OUTCOMES</jtitle><date>2022-04</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>15</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>248</spage><epage>260</epage><pages>248-260</pages><issn>1941-7705</issn><abstract>BACKGROUND: While clinical prediction models (CPMs) are used increasingly commonly to guide patient care, the performance and clinical utility of these CPMs in new patient cohorts is poorly understood. METHODS: We performed 158 external validations of 104 unique CPMs across 3 domains of cardiovascular disease (primary prevention, acute coronary syndrome, and heart failure). Validations were performed in publicly available clinical trial cohorts and model performance was assessed using measures of discrimination, calibration, and net benefit. To explore potential reasons for poor model performance, CPM-clinical trial cohort pairs were stratified based on relatedness, a domain-specific set of characteristics to qualitatively grade the similarity of derivation and validation patient populations. We also examined the model-based C-statistic to assess whether changes in discrimination were because of differences in case-mix between the derivation and validation samples. The impact of model updating on model performance was also assessed. RESULTS: Discrimination decreased significantly between model derivation (0.76 [interquartile range 0.73-0.78]) and validation (0.64 [interquartile range 0.60-0.67], P&lt;0.001), but approximately half of this decrease was because of narrower case-mix in the validation samples. CPMs had better discrimination when tested in related compared with distantly related trial cohorts. Calibration slope was also significantly higher in related trial cohorts (0.77 [interquartile range, 0.59-0.90]) than distantly related cohorts (0.59 [interquartile range 0.43-0.73], P=0.001). When considering the full range of possible decision thresholds between half and twice the outcome incidence, 91% of models had a risk of harm (net benefit below default strategy) at some threshold; this risk could be reduced substantially via updating model intercept, calibration slope, or complete re-estimation. CONCLUSIONS: There are significant decreases in model performance when applying cardiovascular disease CPMs to new patient populations, resulting in substantial risk of harm. Model updating can mitigate these risks. Care should be taken when using CPMs to guide clinical decision-making.</abstract><pub>LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS &amp; WILKINS</pub><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1941-7705
ispartof CIRCULATION-CARDIOVASCULAR QUALITY AND OUTCOMES, 2022-04, Vol.15 (4), p.248-260
issn 1941-7705
language eng
recordid cdi_kuleuven_dspace_20_500_12942_704287
source Lirias (KU Leuven Association); American Heart Association Journals; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals
title Generalizability of Cardiovascular Disease Clinical Prediction Models: 158 Independent External Validations of 104 Unique Models
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-22T09%3A20%3A43IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-kuleuven&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Generalizability%20of%20Cardiovascular%20Disease%20Clinical%20Prediction%20Models:%20158%20Independent%20External%20Validations%20of%20104%20Unique%20Models&rft.jtitle=CIRCULATION-CARDIOVASCULAR%20QUALITY%20AND%20OUTCOMES&rft.au=Gulati,%20Gaurav&rft.date=2022-04&rft.volume=15&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=248&rft.epage=260&rft.pages=248-260&rft.issn=1941-7705&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Ckuleuven%3E20_500_12942_704287%3C/kuleuven%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true