-
Empirical Evidence That There Is No Such Thing As A Validated Prediction Model
Authors:
Florian D. van Leeuwen,
Ewout W. Steyerberg,
David van Klaveren,
Ben Wessler,
David M. Kent,
Erik W. van Zwet
Abstract:
Background: External validations are essential to assess clinical prediction models (CPMs) before deployment. Apart from model misspecification, differences in patient population and other factors influence a model's AUC (c-statistic). We aimed to quantify variation in AUCs across external validation studies and adjust expectations of a model's performance in a new setting.
Methods: The Tufts-PA…
▽ More
Background: External validations are essential to assess clinical prediction models (CPMs) before deployment. Apart from model misspecification, differences in patient population and other factors influence a model's AUC (c-statistic). We aimed to quantify variation in AUCs across external validation studies and adjust expectations of a model's performance in a new setting.
Methods: The Tufts-PACE CPM Registry contains CPMs for cardiovascular disease prognosis. We analyzed the AUCs of 469 CPMs with a total of 1,603 external validations. For each CPM, we performed a random effects meta-analysis to estimate the between-study standard deviation $τ$ among the AUCs. Since the majority of these meta-analyses has only a handful of validations, this leads to very poor estimates of $τ$. So, we estimated a log normal distribution of $τ$ across all CPMs and used this as an empirical prior. We compared this empirical Bayesian approach with frequentist meta-analyses using cross-validation.
Results: The 469 CPMs had a median of 2 external validations (IQR: [1-3]). The estimated distribution of $τ$ had a mean of 0.055 and a standard deviation of 0.015. If $τ$ = 0.05, the 95% prediction interval for the AUC in a new setting is at least +/- 0.1, regardless of the number of validations. Frequentist methods underestimate the uncertainty about the AUC in a new setting. Accounting for $τ$ in a Bayesian approach achieved near nominal coverage.
Conclusion: Due to large heterogeneity among the validated AUC values of a CPM, there is great irreducible uncertainty in predicting the AUC in a new setting. This uncertainty is underestimated by existing methods. The proposed empirical Bayes approach addresses this problem which merits wide application in judging the validity of prediction models.
△ Less
Submitted 12 June, 2024;
originally announced June 2024.
-
Individualized treatment effect was predicted best by modeling baseline risk in interaction with treatment assignment
Authors:
Alexandros Rekkas,
Peter R. Rijnbeek,
David M. Kent,
Ewout W. Steyerberg,
David van Klaveren
Abstract:
Objective: To compare different risk-based methods for optimal prediction of treatment effects. Methods: We simulated RCT data using diverse assumptions for the average treatment effect, a baseline prognostic index of risk (PI), the shape of its interaction with treatment (none, linear, quadratic or non-monotonic), and the magnitude of treatment-related harms (none or constant independent of the P…
▽ More
Objective: To compare different risk-based methods for optimal prediction of treatment effects. Methods: We simulated RCT data using diverse assumptions for the average treatment effect, a baseline prognostic index of risk (PI), the shape of its interaction with treatment (none, linear, quadratic or non-monotonic), and the magnitude of treatment-related harms (none or constant independent of the PI). We predicted absolute benefit using: models with a constant relative treatment effect; stratification in quarters of the PI; models including a linear interaction of treatment with the PI; models including an interaction of treatment with a restricted cubic spline (RCS) transformation of the PI; an adaptive approach using Akaike's Information Criterion. We evaluated predictive performance using root mean squared error and measures of discrimination and calibration for benefit. Results: The linear-interaction model displayed optimal or close-to-optimal performance across many simulation scenarios with moderate sample size (N=4,250 patients; ~ 785 events). The RCS-model was optimal for strong non-linear deviations from a constant treatment effect, particularly when sample size was larger (N=17,000). The adaptive approach also required larger sample sizes. These findings were illustrated in the GUSTO-I trial. Conclusion: An interaction between baseline risk and treatment assignment should be considered to improve treatment effect predictions.
△ Less
Submitted 4 July, 2022; v1 submitted 3 May, 2022;
originally announced May 2022.
-
A standardized framework for risk-based assessment of treatment effect heterogeneity in observational healthcare databases
Authors:
Alexandros Rekkas,
David van Klaveren,
Patrick B. Ryan,
Ewout W. Steyerberg,
David M. Kent,
Peter R. Rijnbeek
Abstract:
The Predictive Approaches to Treatment Effect Heterogeneity statement focused on baseline risk as a robust predictor of treatment effect and provided guidance on risk-based assessment of treatment effect heterogeneity in the RCT setting. The aim of this study was to extend this approach to the observational setting using a standardized scalable framework. The proposed framework consists of five st…
▽ More
The Predictive Approaches to Treatment Effect Heterogeneity statement focused on baseline risk as a robust predictor of treatment effect and provided guidance on risk-based assessment of treatment effect heterogeneity in the RCT setting. The aim of this study was to extend this approach to the observational setting using a standardized scalable framework. The proposed framework consists of five steps: 1) definition of the research aim, i.e., the population, the treatment, the comparator and the outcome(s) of interest; 2) identification of relevant databases; 3) development of a prediction model for the outcome(s) of interest; 4) estimation of relative and absolute treatment effect within strata of predicted risk, after adjusting for observed confounding; 5) presentation of the results. We demonstrate our framework by evaluating heterogeneity of the effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors versus beta blockers on three efficacy and six safety outcomes across three observational databases. The proposed framework can supplement any comparative effectiveness study. We provide a publicly available R software package for applying this framework to any database mapped to the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model. In our demonstration, patients at low risk of acute myocardial infarction received negligible absolute benefits for all three efficacy outcomes, though they were more pronounced in the highest risk quarter, especially for hospitalization with heart failure. However, failing diagnostics showed evidence of residual imbalances even after adjustment for observed confounding. Our framework allows for the evaluation of differential treatment effects across risk strata, which offers the opportunity to consider the benefit-harm trade-off between alternative treatments.
△ Less
Submitted 1 July, 2022; v1 submitted 13 October, 2020;
originally announced October 2020.
