Multicentre Validation of the RESECT-90 Prediction Model for 90-Day Mortality After Lung Resection.

IF 4.3 3区 材料科学 Q1 ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC
Marcus Taylor, Glen P Martin, Udo Abah, Michael Shackcloth, Felice Granato, Richard Booton, Aman Coonar, Stuart W Grant
{"title":"Multicentre Validation of the RESECT-90 Prediction Model for 90-Day Mortality After Lung Resection.","authors":"Marcus Taylor, Glen P Martin, Udo Abah, Michael Shackcloth, Felice Granato, Richard Booton, Aman Coonar, Stuart W Grant","doi":"10.1016/j.cllc.2024.10.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The RESECT-90 model was developed to predict 90-day mortality for patients undergoing lung resection but hasn't been externally validated. The aim of this study was to validate the RESECT-90 clinical prediction model using multicentre patient data from across the United Kingdom (UK).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Data from 12 UK thoracic surgery centers for patients undergoing lung resection between 2016 and 2020 with available 90-day mortality status were used to externally validate the RESECT-90 model. Measures of discrimination (area under the receiving operator characteristic curve [AUC]) and calibration (calibration slope, calibration intercept and flexible calibration plot) were assessed as measures of model performance. Model recalibration was also performed by updating the original model intercept and coefficients.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 12,241 patients were included. Overall 90-day mortality was 2.9% (n = 360). Acceptable model discrimination was demonstrated (AUC 0.74 [0.73, 0.75]). Calibration varied between centers with some evidence of overall model miscalibration (calibration slope 0.80 [0.66, 0.95] and calibration intercept 0.40 [0.29, 0.52]) despite acceptable appearances of the flexible calibration plot. The model was subsequently recalibrated, after which all measures of calibration indicated excellent performance.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>After external validation and recalibration using a large contemporary cohort of patients undergoing surgery in multiple geographical locations across the UK, the RESECT-90 model demonstrated satisfactory statistical performance for the prediction of 90-day mortality after lung resection. Whilst the recalibrated model will require ongoing validation, the results of this study suggest that routine use of the RESECT-90 model in UK thoracic surgery practice should be considered.</p>","PeriodicalId":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cllc.2024.10.005","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The RESECT-90 model was developed to predict 90-day mortality for patients undergoing lung resection but hasn't been externally validated. The aim of this study was to validate the RESECT-90 clinical prediction model using multicentre patient data from across the United Kingdom (UK).

Materials and methods: Data from 12 UK thoracic surgery centers for patients undergoing lung resection between 2016 and 2020 with available 90-day mortality status were used to externally validate the RESECT-90 model. Measures of discrimination (area under the receiving operator characteristic curve [AUC]) and calibration (calibration slope, calibration intercept and flexible calibration plot) were assessed as measures of model performance. Model recalibration was also performed by updating the original model intercept and coefficients.

Results: A total of 12,241 patients were included. Overall 90-day mortality was 2.9% (n = 360). Acceptable model discrimination was demonstrated (AUC 0.74 [0.73, 0.75]). Calibration varied between centers with some evidence of overall model miscalibration (calibration slope 0.80 [0.66, 0.95] and calibration intercept 0.40 [0.29, 0.52]) despite acceptable appearances of the flexible calibration plot. The model was subsequently recalibrated, after which all measures of calibration indicated excellent performance.

Conclusions: After external validation and recalibration using a large contemporary cohort of patients undergoing surgery in multiple geographical locations across the UK, the RESECT-90 model demonstrated satisfactory statistical performance for the prediction of 90-day mortality after lung resection. Whilst the recalibrated model will require ongoing validation, the results of this study suggest that routine use of the RESECT-90 model in UK thoracic surgery practice should be considered.

肺切除术后 90 天死亡率 RESECT-90 预测模型的多中心验证。
背景:RESECT-90模型用于预测肺切除术患者的90天死亡率,但尚未经过外部验证。本研究旨在利用英国各地多中心患者数据验证 RESECT-90 临床预测模型:来自英国12个胸外科中心的2016年至2020年间接受肺切除术的患者数据(90天死亡率情况可查)被用于对RESECT-90模型进行外部验证。作为模型性能的衡量标准,对辨别度(接受操作者特征曲线下面积 [AUC])和校准度(校准斜率、校准截距和灵活校准图)进行了评估。还通过更新原始模型截距和系数对模型进行了重新校准:结果:共纳入 12241 名患者。90天总死亡率为2.9%(n = 360)。模型区分度可接受(AUC 0.74 [0.73, 0.75])。各中心的校准结果不尽相同,尽管灵活校准图的显示结果可以接受,但仍有一些证据表明整体模型存在校准误差(校准斜率为 0.80 [0.66, 0.95],校准截距为 0.40 [0.29, 0.52])。随后对模型进行了重新校准,校准后的所有指标均显示出良好的性能:结论:在使用英国多个地区接受手术的大型当代患者队列进行外部验证和重新校准后,RESECT-90 模型在预测肺切除术后 90 天死亡率方面表现出令人满意的统计性能。虽然重新校准后的模型需要不断验证,但本研究结果表明,应考虑在英国胸外科实践中常规使用 RESECT-90 模型。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
567
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信