Targeted Development and Validation of Clinical Prediction Models in Secondary Care Settings: Opportunities and Challenges for Electronic Health Record Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unlabelled: Before deploying a clinical prediction model (CPM) in clinical practice, its performance needs to be demonstrated in the population of intended use. This is also called "targeted validation." Many CPMs developed in tertiary settings may be most useful in secondary care, where the patient case mix is broad and practitioners need to triage patients efficiently. However, since structured or rich datasets of sufficient quality from secondary to assess the performance of a CPM are scarce, a validation gap exists that hampers the implementation of CPMs in secondary care settings. In this viewpoint, we highlight the importance of targeted validation and the use of CPMs in secondary care settings and discuss the potential and challenges of using electronic health record (EHR) data to overcome the existing validation gap. The introduction of software applications for text mining of EHRs allows the generation of structured "big" datasets, but the imperfection of EHRs as a research database requires careful validation of data quality. When using EHR data for the development and validation of CPMs, in addition to widely accepted checklists, we propose considering three additional practical steps: (1) involve a local EHR expert (clinician or nurse) in the data extraction process, (2) perform validity checks on the generated datasets, and (3) provide metadata on how variables were constructed from EHRs. These steps help to generate EHR datasets that are statistically powerful, of sufficient quality and replicable, and enable targeted development and validation of CPMs in secondary care settings. This approach can fill a major gap in prediction modeling research and appropriately advance CPMs into clinical practice.
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 | 0.304 | 0.559 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".