Abstract
Background Clinical prediction models (CPMs) are used to inform treatment decisions for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. We aimed to assess the performance of such CPMs in fully independent cohorts.
Methods and Results 63 models predicting outcomes for patients at risk of cardiovascular disease from the Tufts PACE CPM Registry were selected for external validation on publicly available data from up to 4 broadly inclusive primary prevention clinical trials. For each CPM-trial pair, we assessed model discrimination, calibration, and net benefit. Results were stratified based on the relatedness of derivation and validation cohorts, and net benefit was reassessed after updating model intercept, slope, or complete re-estimation. The median c statistic of the CPMs decreased from 0.77 (IQR 0.72-0.78) in the derivation cohorts to 0.63 (IQR 0.58-0.66) when externally validated. The validation c-statistic was higher when derivation and validation cohorts were considered related than when they were distantly related (0.67 vs 0.60, p < 0.001). The calibration slope was also higher in related cohorts than distantly related cohorts (0.69 vs 0.58, p < 0.001). Net benefit analysis suggested substantial likelihood of harm when models were externally applied, but this likelihood decreased after model updating.
Conclusions Discrimination and calibration decrease significantly when CPMs for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease are tested in external populations, particularly when the population is only distantly related to the derivation population. Poorly calibrated predictions lead to poor decision making. Model updating can reduce the likelihood of harmful decision making, and is needed to realize the full potential of risk-based decision making in new settings.
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 Health Sciences 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All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.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
The Tufts Predictive Analytics and Comparative Effectiveness (PACE) CPM Registry
