TY - JOUR T1 - Predictability and Stability Testing to Assess Clinical Decision Instrument Performance for Children After Blunt Torso Trauma JF - medRxiv DO - 10.1101/2022.03.08.22270944 SP - 2022.03.08.22270944 AU - Aaron E. Kornblith AU - Chandan Singh AU - Gabriel Devlin AU - Newton Addo AU - Christian J. Streck AU - James F. Holmes AU - Nathan Kuppermann AU - Jacqueline Grupp-Phelan AU - Jeffrey Fineman AU - Atul J. Butte AU - Bin Yu Y1 - 2022/01/01 UR - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/03/08/2022.03.08.22270944.abstract N2 - Objective The Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) has developed a clinical-decision instrument (CDI) to identify children at very low risk of intra-abdominal injury. However, the CDI has not been externally validated. We sought to vet the PECARN CDI with the Predictability Computability Stability (PCS) data science framework, potentially increasing its chance of a successful external validation.Materials & Methods We performed a secondary analysis of two prospectively collected datasets: PECARN (12,044 children from 20 emergency departments) and an independent external validation dataset from the Pediatric Surgical Research Collaborative (PedSRC; 2,188 children from 14 emergency departments). We used PCS to reanalyze the original PECARN CDI along with new interpretable PCS CDIs we developed using the PECARN dataset. External validation was then measured on the PedSRC dataset.Results Three predictor variables (abdominal wall trauma, Glasgow Coma Scale Score <14, and abdominal tenderness) were found to be stable. Using only these variables, we developed a PCS CDI which had a lower sensitivity than the original PECARN CDI on internal PECARN validation but performed the same on external PedSRC validation (sensitivity 96.8% and specificity 44%).Conclusion The PCS data science framework vetted the PECARN CDI and its constituent predictor variables prior to external validation. In this case, the PECARN CDI with 7 predictors, and our PCS-based CDI with 3 stable predictors, had identical performance on independent external validation. This suggests that both CDIs will generalize well to new populations, offering a potential strategy to increase the chance of a successful (costly) prospective validation.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis work was supported in part from NSF TRIPODS Grant 1740855, DMS-1613002, 1953191, 2015341, IIS 1741340, ONR grant N00014-17-1-2176. Moreover, this work is supported in part by the Center for Science of Information (CSoI), an NSF Science and Technology Center, under grant agreement CCF-0939370. This project was supported in part by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, through UCSF-CTSI Grant Number UL1 TR001872.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This secondary analysis of anonymized data was deemed exempt from review by the University of California, San Francisco, and Medical University of South Carolina institutional review boards.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesAll data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript. https://github.com/csinva/iai-clinical-decision-rule ER -