风险预测模型外部验证的信息价值分析。

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Mohsen Sadatsafavi, Tae Yoon Lee, Laure Wynants, Andrew J Vickers, Paul Gustafson
{"title":"风险预测模型外部验证的信息价值分析。","authors":"Mohsen Sadatsafavi,&nbsp;Tae Yoon Lee,&nbsp;Laure Wynants,&nbsp;Andrew J Vickers,&nbsp;Paul Gustafson","doi":"10.1177/0272989X231178317","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A previously developed risk prediction model needs to be validated before being used in a new population. The finite size of the validation sample entails that there is uncertainty around model performance. We apply value-of-information (VoI) methodology to quantify the consequence of uncertainty in terms of net benefit (NB).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We define the expected value of perfect information (EVPI) for model validation as the expected loss in NB due to not confidently knowing which of the alternative decisions confers the highest NB. We propose bootstrap-based and asymptotic methods for EVPI computations and conduct simulation studies to compare their performance. In a case study, we use the non-US subsets of a clinical trial as the development sample for predicting mortality after myocardial infarction and calculate the validation EVPI for the US subsample.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The computation methods generated similar EVPI values in simulation studies. EVPI generally declined with larger samples. In the case study, at the prespecified threshold of 0.02, the best decision with current information would be to use the model, with an incremental NB of 0.0020 over treating all. At this threshold, the EVPI was 0.0005 (relative EVPI = 25%). When scaled to the annual number of heart attacks in the US, the expected NB loss due to uncertainty was equal to 400 true positives or 19,600 false positives, indicating the value of further model validation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>VoI methods can be applied to the NB calculated during external validation of clinical prediction models. While uncertainty does not directly affect the clinical implications of NB findings, validation EVPI provides an objective perspective to the need for further validation and can be reported alongside NB in external validation studies.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>External validation is a critical step when transporting a risk prediction model to a new setting, but the finite size of the validation sample creates uncertainty about the performance of the model.In decision theory, such uncertainty is associated with loss of net benefit because it can prevent one from identifying whether the use of the model is beneficial over alternative strategies.We define the expected value of perfect information for external validation as the expected loss in net benefit by not confidently knowing if the use of the model is net beneficial.The adoption of a model for a new population should be based on its expected net benefit; independently, value-of-information methods can be used to decide whether further validation studies are warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":"43 5","pages":"564-575"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10336716/pdf/","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Value-of-Information Analysis for External Validation of Risk Prediction Models.\",\"authors\":\"Mohsen Sadatsafavi,&nbsp;Tae Yoon Lee,&nbsp;Laure Wynants,&nbsp;Andrew J Vickers,&nbsp;Paul Gustafson\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0272989X231178317\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A previously developed risk prediction model needs to be validated before being used in a new population. The finite size of the validation sample entails that there is uncertainty around model performance. We apply value-of-information (VoI) methodology to quantify the consequence of uncertainty in terms of net benefit (NB).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We define the expected value of perfect information (EVPI) for model validation as the expected loss in NB due to not confidently knowing which of the alternative decisions confers the highest NB. We propose bootstrap-based and asymptotic methods for EVPI computations and conduct simulation studies to compare their performance. In a case study, we use the non-US subsets of a clinical trial as the development sample for predicting mortality after myocardial infarction and calculate the validation EVPI for the US subsample.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The computation methods generated similar EVPI values in simulation studies. EVPI generally declined with larger samples. In the case study, at the prespecified threshold of 0.02, the best decision with current information would be to use the model, with an incremental NB of 0.0020 over treating all. At this threshold, the EVPI was 0.0005 (relative EVPI = 25%). When scaled to the annual number of heart attacks in the US, the expected NB loss due to uncertainty was equal to 400 true positives or 19,600 false positives, indicating the value of further model validation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>VoI methods can be applied to the NB calculated during external validation of clinical prediction models. While uncertainty does not directly affect the clinical implications of NB findings, validation EVPI provides an objective perspective to the need for further validation and can be reported alongside NB in external validation studies.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>External validation is a critical step when transporting a risk prediction model to a new setting, but the finite size of the validation sample creates uncertainty about the performance of the model.In decision theory, such uncertainty is associated with loss of net benefit because it can prevent one from identifying whether the use of the model is beneficial over alternative strategies.We define the expected value of perfect information for external validation as the expected loss in net benefit by not confidently knowing if the use of the model is net beneficial.The adoption of a model for a new population should be based on its expected net benefit; independently, value-of-information methods can be used to decide whether further validation studies are warranted.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49839,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Decision Making\",\"volume\":\"43 5\",\"pages\":\"564-575\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10336716/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Decision Making\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X231178317\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X231178317","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

背景:先前开发的风险预测模型在用于新人群之前需要进行验证。验证样本的有限大小意味着模型性能存在不确定性。我们应用信息价值(VoI)方法,以净效益(NB)来量化不确定性的后果。方法:我们将模型验证的完美信息(EVPI)的期望值定义为由于无法自信地知道哪个备选决策赋予最高的NB而导致的NB的预期损失。我们提出了基于自举和渐近的EVPI计算方法,并进行了仿真研究来比较它们的性能。在一个案例研究中,我们使用临床试验的非美国子集作为预测心肌梗死后死亡率的开发样本,并计算美国子样本的验证EVPI。结果:两种计算方法在模拟研究中得到相似的EVPI值。EVPI总体上随着样本量的增大而下降。在案例研究中,在预先指定的阈值为0.02时,使用当前信息的最佳决策将是使用该模型,其增量NB为0.0020。在该阈值下,EVPI为0.0005(相对EVPI = 25%)。当缩放到美国每年心脏病发作的数量时,由于不确定性导致的预期NB损失等于400个真阳性或19,600个假阳性,表明进一步模型验证的价值。结论:VoI方法可用于临床预测模型外部验证时计算的NB。虽然不确定性并不直接影响NB结果的临床意义,但验证EVPI为进一步验证的需要提供了客观的视角,并且可以在外部验证研究中与NB一起报告。重点:外部验证是将风险预测模型转移到新设置时的关键步骤,但是验证样本的有限大小会对模型的性能产生不确定性。在决策理论中,这种不确定性与净收益损失有关,因为它可以阻止人们识别模型的使用是否优于替代策略。我们将外部验证的完美信息的期望值定义为净收益的预期损失,因为我们不能自信地知道模型的使用是否具有净收益。新人口模式的采用应以预期的净效益为基础;独立地,信息价值方法可以用来决定是否需要进一步的验证研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Value-of-Information Analysis for External Validation of Risk Prediction Models.

Value-of-Information Analysis for External Validation of Risk Prediction Models.

Value-of-Information Analysis for External Validation of Risk Prediction Models.

Value-of-Information Analysis for External Validation of Risk Prediction Models.

Background: A previously developed risk prediction model needs to be validated before being used in a new population. The finite size of the validation sample entails that there is uncertainty around model performance. We apply value-of-information (VoI) methodology to quantify the consequence of uncertainty in terms of net benefit (NB).

Methods: We define the expected value of perfect information (EVPI) for model validation as the expected loss in NB due to not confidently knowing which of the alternative decisions confers the highest NB. We propose bootstrap-based and asymptotic methods for EVPI computations and conduct simulation studies to compare their performance. In a case study, we use the non-US subsets of a clinical trial as the development sample for predicting mortality after myocardial infarction and calculate the validation EVPI for the US subsample.

Results: The computation methods generated similar EVPI values in simulation studies. EVPI generally declined with larger samples. In the case study, at the prespecified threshold of 0.02, the best decision with current information would be to use the model, with an incremental NB of 0.0020 over treating all. At this threshold, the EVPI was 0.0005 (relative EVPI = 25%). When scaled to the annual number of heart attacks in the US, the expected NB loss due to uncertainty was equal to 400 true positives or 19,600 false positives, indicating the value of further model validation.

Conclusion: VoI methods can be applied to the NB calculated during external validation of clinical prediction models. While uncertainty does not directly affect the clinical implications of NB findings, validation EVPI provides an objective perspective to the need for further validation and can be reported alongside NB in external validation studies.

Highlights: External validation is a critical step when transporting a risk prediction model to a new setting, but the finite size of the validation sample creates uncertainty about the performance of the model.In decision theory, such uncertainty is associated with loss of net benefit because it can prevent one from identifying whether the use of the model is beneficial over alternative strategies.We define the expected value of perfect information for external validation as the expected loss in net benefit by not confidently knowing if the use of the model is net beneficial.The adoption of a model for a new population should be based on its expected net benefit; independently, value-of-information methods can be used to decide whether further validation studies are warranted.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Decision Making
Medical Decision Making 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
5.60%
发文量
146
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Decision Making offers rigorous and systematic approaches to decision making that are designed to improve the health and clinical care of individuals and to assist with health care policy development. Using the fundamentals of decision analysis and theory, economic evaluation, and evidence based quality assessment, Medical Decision Making presents both theoretical and practical statistical and modeling techniques and methods from a variety of disciplines.
×
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