Abstract
Purpose It is increasingly recognized that clinical prediction models (CPMs) often do not perform as expected when they are tested on new databases. Independent external validations of CPMs are recommended but often not performed. Here we conduct independent external validations of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) CPMs.
Methods A systematic review identified CPMs predicting outcomes for patients with ACS. Independent external validations were performed by evaluating model performance using individual patient data from 5 large clinical trials. CPM performance with and without various recalibration techniques was evaluated with a focus on CPM discrimination (c-statistic, % relative change in c-statistic) as well as calibration (Harrell’s Eavg, E90, Net Benefit).
Results Of 269 ACS CPMs screened, 23 (8.5%) were compatible with at least one of the trials and 28 clinically appropriate external validations were performed. The median c statistic of the CPMs in the derivation cohorts was 0.76 (IQR, 0.74 to 0.78). The median c-statistic in these external validations was 0.70 (IQR, 0.66 to 0.71) reflecting a 24% decrement in discrimination. However, this decrement in discrimination was due mostly to narrower case-mix in the validation cohorts compared to derivation cohorts, as reflected in the median model based c-statistic [0.71 (IQR 0.66 to 0.75). The median calibration slope in external validations was 0.84 (IQR, 0.72 to 0.98) and the median Eavg (standardized by the outcome rate) was 0.4 (IQR, 0.3 to 0.8). Net benefit indicates that most CPMs had a high risk of causing net harm when not recalibrated, particularly for decision thresholds not near the overall outcome rate.
Conclusion Independent external validations of published ACS CPMs demonstrate that models tested in our sample had relatively well-preserved discrimination but poor calibration when externally validated. Applying ‘off-the-shelf’ CPMs often risks net harm unless models are recalibrated to the populations on which they are used.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
N/A not a clinical trial
Funding Statement
Research reported in this work was funded through a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Award (ME-1606-35555).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Tufts Medical Center IRB #12461
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
This study examined data from the Tufts Predictive Analytics and Comparative Effectiveness (PACE) CPM Registry (http://pace.tuftsmedicalcenter.org/cpm).
