MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417399303 · doi:10.1186/s41512-025-00204-9

A decomposition of Fisher’s information to inform sample size for developing or updating fair and precise clinical prediction models — part 2: time-to-event outcomes

2025· article· en· W4417399303 on OpenAlex
Richard D Riley, Gary S. Collins, Lucinda Archer, Rebecca Whittle, Amardeep Legha, Laura Kirton, Paula Dhiman, Mohsen Sadatsafavi, Nicola J. Adderley, Joseph Alderman, Glen P. Martin, Joie Ensor

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDiagnostic and Prognostic Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersBirmingham Biomedical Research CentreEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchCancer Research UK
KeywordsReliability (semiconductor)Sample size determinationPredictive modellingSample (material)DecompositionData modeling

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: When developing a clinical prediction model using time-to-event data (i.e. with censoring and different lengths of follow-up), previous research focuses on the sample size needed to minimise overfitting and precisely estimating the overall risk. However, instability of individual-level risk estimates may still be large. METHODS: We propose using a decomposition of Fisher's information matrix to help examine and calculate the sample size required for developing a model that aims for precise and fair risk estimates. We propose a six-step process which can be used either before data collection or when an existing dataset is available. Steps 1 to 5 require researchers to specify the overall risk in the target population at a key time-point of interest: an assumed pragmatic 'core model' in the form of an exponential regression model, the (anticipated) joint distribution of core predictors included in that model and the distribution of censoring times. The 'core model' can be specified directly or based on a specified C-index and relative effects of (standardised) predictors. The joint distribution of predictors may be available directly in an existing dataset, in a pilot study or in a synthetic dataset provided by other researchers. RESULTS: We derive closed-form solutions that decompose the variance of an individual's estimated event rate into Fisher's unit information matrix, predictor values and total sample size; this allows researchers to calculate and examine uncertainty distributions around individual risk estimates and misclassification probabilities for specified sample sizes. We provide an illustrative example in breast cancer and emphasise the importance of clinical context, including any risk thresholds for decision-making, and examine fairness concerns for pre- and postmenopausal women. Lastly, in two empirical evaluations, we provide reassurance that uncertainty interval widths based on our exponential approach are close to using more flexible parametric models. CONCLUSIONS: Our approach allows users to identify the (target) sample size required to develop a prediction model for time-to-event outcomes, via the pmstabilityss module. It aims to facilitate models with improved trust, reliability and fairness in individual-level predictions.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.074
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.660
Threshold uncertainty score0.934

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.074
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.101
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.361 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it