Risk prediction models need thorough validation to assess their performance. Validation of models for survival outcomes poses challenges due to the censoring of observations and the varying time... Show moreRisk prediction models need thorough validation to assess their performance. Validation of models for survival outcomes poses challenges due to the censoring of observations and the varying time horizon at which predictions can be made. This article describes measures to evaluate predictions and the potential improvement in decision making from survival models based on Cox proportional hazards regression.As a motivating case study, the authors consider the prediction of the composite outcome of recurrence or death (the "event ") in patients with breast cancer after surgery. They developed a simple Cox regression model with 3 predictors, as in the Nottingham Prognostic Index, in 2982 women (1275 events over 5 years of follow-up) and externally validated this model in 686 women (285 events over 5 years). Improvement in performance was assessed after the addition of progesterone receptor as a prognostic biomarker.The model predictions can be evaluated across the full range of observed follow-up times or for the event occurring by the end of a fixed time horizon of interest. The authors first discuss recommended statistical measures that evaluate model performance in terms of discrimination, calibration, or overall performance. Further, they evaluate the potential clinical utility of the model to support clinical decision making according to a net benefit measure. They provide SAS and R code to illustrate internal and external validation.The authors recommend the proposed set of performance measures for transparent reporting of the validity of predictions from survival models. Show less
Geloven, N. van; Giardiello, D.; Bonneville, E.F.; Teece, L.; Ramspek, C.L.; Smeden, M. van; ... ; STRATOS Initiative 2022
Background: The assessment of calibration performance of risk prediction models based on regression or more flexible machine learning algorithms receives little attention.Main text: Herein, we... Show moreBackground: The assessment of calibration performance of risk prediction models based on regression or more flexible machine learning algorithms receives little attention.Main text: Herein, we argue that this needs to change immediately because poorly calibrated algorithms can be misleading and potentially harmful for clinical decision-making. We summarize how to avoid poor calibration at algorithm development and how to assess calibration at algorithm validation, emphasizing balance between model complexity and the available sample size. At external validation, calibration curves require sufficiently large samples. Algorithm updating should be considered for appropriate support of clinical practice.Conclusion: Efforts are required to avoid poor calibration when developing prediction models, to evaluate calibration when validating models, and to update models when indicated. The ultimate aim is to optimize the utility of predictive analytics for shared decision-making and patient counseling. Show less
Sauerbrei, W.; Abrahamowicz, M.; Altman, D.G.; Cessie, S. le; Carpenter, J.; STRATOS Initiative 2014
