Geographic and temporal validity of prediction models: different approaches were useful to examine model performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Validation of clinical prediction models traditionally refers to the assessment of model performance in new patients. We studied different approaches to geographic and temporal validation in the setting of multicenter data from two time periods. Study Design and Setting We illustrated different analytic methods for validation using a sample of 14,857 patients hospitalized with heart failure at 90 hospitals in two distinct time periods. Bootstrap resampling was used to assess internal validity. Meta-analytic methods were used to assess geographic transportability. Each hospital was used once as a validation sample, with the remaining hospitals used for model derivation. Hospital-specific estimates of discrimination (c-statistic) and calibration (calibration intercepts and slopes) were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis methods. I 2 statistics and prediction interval width quantified geographic transportability. Temporal transportability was assessed using patients from the earlier period for model derivation and patients from the later period for model validation. Results Estimates of reproducibility, pooled hospital-specific performance, and temporal transportability were on average very similar, with c-statistics of 0.75. Between-hospital variation was moderate according to I 2 statistics and prediction intervals for c-statistics. Conclusion This study illustrates how performance of prediction models can be assessed in settings with multicenter data at different time periods.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.295 | 0.466 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".