Impact of sample size on the stability of risk scores from clinical prediction models: a case study in cardiovascular disease.

Diagnostic and prognostic research Pub Date : 2020-09-09 eCollection Date: 2020-01-01 DOI:10.1186/s41512-020-00082-3
Alexander Pate, Richard Emsley, Matthew Sperrin, Glen P Martin, Tjeerd van Staa
{"title":"Impact of sample size on the stability of risk scores from clinical prediction models: a case study in cardiovascular disease.","authors":"Alexander Pate,&nbsp;Richard Emsley,&nbsp;Matthew Sperrin,&nbsp;Glen P Martin,&nbsp;Tjeerd van Staa","doi":"10.1186/s41512-020-00082-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Stability of risk estimates from prediction models may be highly dependent on the sample size of the dataset available for model derivation. In this paper, we evaluate the stability of cardiovascular disease risk scores for individual patients when using different sample sizes for model derivation; such sample sizes include those similar to models recommended in the national guidelines, and those based on recently published sample size formula for prediction models.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We mimicked the process of sampling <i>N</i> patients from a population to develop a risk prediction model by sampling patients from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. A cardiovascular disease risk prediction model was developed on this sample and used to generate risk scores for an independent cohort of patients. This process was repeated 1000 times, giving a distribution of risks for each patient. <i>N</i> = 100,000, 50,000, 10,000, <i>N</i> <sub>min</sub> (derived from sample size formula) and <i>N</i> <sub>epv10</sub> (meets 10 events per predictor rule) were considered. The 5-95th percentile range of risks across these models was used to evaluate instability. Patients were grouped by a risk derived from a model developed on the entire population (population-derived risk) to summarise results.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For a sample size of 100,000, the median 5-95th percentile range of risks for patients across the 1000 models was 0.77%, 1.60%, 2.42% and 3.22% for patients with population-derived risks of 4-5%, 9-10%, 14-15% and 19-20% respectively; for <i>N</i> = 10,000, it was 2.49%, 5.23%, 7.92% and 10.59%, and for <i>N</i> using the formula-derived sample size, it was 6.79%, 14.41%, 21.89% and 29.21%. Restricting this analysis to models with high discrimination, good calibration or small mean absolute prediction error reduced the percentile range, but high levels of instability remained.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Widely used cardiovascular disease risk prediction models suffer from high levels of instability induced by sampling variation. Many models will also suffer from overfitting (a closely linked concept), but at acceptable levels of overfitting, there may still be high levels of instability in individual risk. Stability of risk estimates should be a criterion when determining the minimum sample size to develop models.</p>","PeriodicalId":72800,"journal":{"name":"Diagnostic and prognostic research","volume":" ","pages":"14"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s41512-020-00082-3","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnostic and prognostic research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41512-020-00082-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

Abstract

Background: Stability of risk estimates from prediction models may be highly dependent on the sample size of the dataset available for model derivation. In this paper, we evaluate the stability of cardiovascular disease risk scores for individual patients when using different sample sizes for model derivation; such sample sizes include those similar to models recommended in the national guidelines, and those based on recently published sample size formula for prediction models.

Methods: We mimicked the process of sampling N patients from a population to develop a risk prediction model by sampling patients from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. A cardiovascular disease risk prediction model was developed on this sample and used to generate risk scores for an independent cohort of patients. This process was repeated 1000 times, giving a distribution of risks for each patient. N = 100,000, 50,000, 10,000, N min (derived from sample size formula) and N epv10 (meets 10 events per predictor rule) were considered. The 5-95th percentile range of risks across these models was used to evaluate instability. Patients were grouped by a risk derived from a model developed on the entire population (population-derived risk) to summarise results.

Results: For a sample size of 100,000, the median 5-95th percentile range of risks for patients across the 1000 models was 0.77%, 1.60%, 2.42% and 3.22% for patients with population-derived risks of 4-5%, 9-10%, 14-15% and 19-20% respectively; for N = 10,000, it was 2.49%, 5.23%, 7.92% and 10.59%, and for N using the formula-derived sample size, it was 6.79%, 14.41%, 21.89% and 29.21%. Restricting this analysis to models with high discrimination, good calibration or small mean absolute prediction error reduced the percentile range, but high levels of instability remained.

Conclusions: Widely used cardiovascular disease risk prediction models suffer from high levels of instability induced by sampling variation. Many models will also suffer from overfitting (a closely linked concept), but at acceptable levels of overfitting, there may still be high levels of instability in individual risk. Stability of risk estimates should be a criterion when determining the minimum sample size to develop models.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
样本量对临床预测模型风险评分稳定性的影响:心血管疾病病例研究
背景:预测模型的风险估计的稳定性可能高度依赖于可用于模型推导的数据集的样本量。在本文中,我们评估了使用不同样本量进行模型推导时个体患者心血管疾病风险评分的稳定性;这些样本量包括那些与国家指南中推荐的模型相似的模型,以及那些基于最近公布的预测模型样本量公式的模型。方法:模拟从人群中抽取N例患者的过程,通过从临床实践研究数据链中抽取患者,建立风险预测模型。在该样本上建立了心血管疾病风险预测模型,并用于为独立的患者队列生成风险评分。这个过程重复了1000次,给出了每个病人的风险分布。考虑N = 100,000, 50,000, 10,000, N min(从样本量公式推导)和N epv10(每个预测规则满足10个事件)。这些模型中5-95个百分位的风险范围被用来评估不稳定性。根据在整个人群中开发的模型(人群衍生风险)得出的风险对患者进行分组,以总结结果。结果:对于100,000个样本量,1000个模型中患者的风险中位数5-95百分位范围分别为0.77%,1.60%,2.42%和3.22%,人群衍生风险分别为4-5%,9-10%,14-15%和19-20%;当N = 10000时,分别为2.49%、5.23%、7.92%和10.59%;当N = 10000时,分别为6.79%、14.41%、21.89%和29.21%。将此分析限制在判别性高、校准良好或平均绝对预测误差小的模型上,减少了百分位数范围,但仍然存在高度的不稳定性。结论:广泛应用的心血管疾病风险预测模型由于样本变异而存在高度不稳定性。许多模型也会遭受过拟合(一个密切相关的概念),但在可接受的过拟合水平下,个体风险可能仍然存在很高的不稳定性。在确定开发模型的最小样本量时,风险估计的稳定性应该是一个标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊最新文献
Risk prediction tools for pressure injury occurrence: an umbrella review of systematic reviews reporting model development and validation methods. Rehabilitation outcomes after comprehensive post-acute inpatient rehabilitation following moderate to severe acquired brain injury-study protocol for an overall prognosis study based on routinely collected health data. Validation of prognostic models predicting mortality or ICU admission in patients with COVID-19 in low- and middle-income countries: a global individual participant data meta-analysis. Reported prevalence and comparison of diagnostic approaches for Candida africana: a systematic review with meta-analysis. The relative data hungriness of unpenalized and penalized logistic regression and ensemble-based machine learning methods: the case of calibration.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1