ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Clinical prediction models are often not evaluated properly in specific settings or updated, for instance, with information from new markers. These key steps are needed such that models are fit for purpose and remain relevant in the long-term. We aimed to present an overview of methodological guidance for the evaluation (i.e., validation and impact assessment) and updating of clinical prediction models. METHODS: We systematically searched nine databases from January 2000 to January 2022 for articles in English with methodological recommendations for the post-derivation stages of interest. Qualitative analysis was used to summarize the 70 selected guidance papers. RESULTS: Key aspects for validation are the assessment of statistical performance using measures for discrimination (e.g., C-statistic) and calibration (e.g., calibration-in-the-large and calibration slope). For assessing impact or usefulness in clinical decision-making, recent papers advise using decision-analytic measures (e.g., the Net Benefit) over simplistic classification measures that ignore clinical consequences (e.g., accuracy, overall Net Reclassification Index). Commonly recommended methods for model updating are recalibration (i.e., adjustment of intercept or baseline hazard and/or slope), revision (i.e., re-estimation of individual predictor effects), and extension (i.e., addition of new markers). Additional methodological guidance is needed for newer types of updating (e.g., meta-model and dynamic updating) and machine learning-based models. CONCLUSION: Substantial guidance was found for model evaluation and more conventional updating of regression-based models. An important development in model evaluation is the introduction of a decision-analytic framework for assessing clinical usefulness. Consensus is emerging on methods for model updating.
Subject(s)
Models, Statistical , Humans , Calibration , PrognosisABSTRACT
Aim: Early detection of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients who are likely to develop worse outcomes is of great importance, which may help select patients at risk of rapid deterioration who should require high-level monitoring and more aggressive treatment. We aimed to develop and validate a nomogram for predicting 30-days poor outcome of patients with COVID-19. Methods: The prediction model was developed in a primary cohort consisting of 233 patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, and data were collected from January 3 to March 20, 2020. We identified and integrated significant prognostic factors for 30-days poor outcome to construct a nomogram. The model was subjected to internal validation and to external validation with two separate cohorts of 110 and 118 cases, respectively. The performance of the nomogram was assessed with respect to its predictive accuracy, discriminative ability, and clinical usefulness. Results: In the primary cohort, the mean age of patients was 55.4 years and 129 (55.4%) were male. Prognostic factors contained in the clinical nomogram were age, lactic dehydrogenase, aspartate aminotransferase, prothrombin time, serum creatinine, serum sodium, fasting blood glucose, and D-dimer. The model was externally validated in two cohorts achieving an AUC of 0.946 and 0.878, sensitivity of 100 and 79%, and specificity of 76.5 and 83.8%, respectively. Although adding CT score to the clinical nomogram (clinical-CT nomogram) did not yield better predictive performance, decision curve analysis showed that the clinical-CT nomogram provided better clinical utility than the clinical nomogram. Conclusions: We established and validated a nomogram that can provide an individual prediction of 30-days poor outcome for COVID-19 patients. This practical prognostic model may help clinicians in decision making and reduce mortality.