↓ Skip to main content

Clinical prediction in defined populations: a simulation study investigating when and how to aggregate existing models

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
Title
Clinical prediction in defined populations: a simulation study investigating when and how to aggregate existing models
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12874-016-0277-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Glen P. Martin, Mamas A. Mamas, Niels Peek, Iain Buchan, Matthew Sperrin

Abstract

Clinical prediction models (CPMs) are increasingly deployed to support healthcare decisions but they are derived inconsistently, in part due to limited data. An emerging alternative is to aggregate existing CPMs developed for similar settings and outcomes. This simulation study aimed to investigate the impact of between-population-heterogeneity and sample size on aggregating existing CPMs in a defined population, compared with developing a model de novo. Simulations were designed to mimic a scenario in which multiple CPMs for a binary outcome had been derived in distinct, heterogeneous populations, with potentially different predictors available in each. We then generated a new 'local' population and compared the performance of CPMs developed for this population by aggregation, using stacked regression, principal component analysis or partial least squares, with redevelopment from scratch using backwards selection and penalised regression. While redevelopment approaches resulted in models that were miscalibrated for local datasets of less than 500 observations, model aggregation methods were well calibrated across all simulation scenarios. When the size of local data was less than 1000 observations and between-population-heterogeneity was small, aggregating existing CPMs gave better discrimination and had the lowest mean square error in the predicted risks compared with deriving a new model. Conversely, given greater than 1000 observations and significant between-population-heterogeneity, then redevelopment outperformed the aggregation approaches. In all other scenarios, both aggregation and de novo derivation resulted in similar predictive performance. This study demonstrates a pragmatic approach to contextualising CPMs to defined populations. When aiming to develop models in defined populations, modellers should consider existing CPMs, with aggregation approaches being a suitable modelling strategy particularly with sparse data on the local population.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 7%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 37 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 20%
Researcher 4 10%
Professor 3 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 3 7%
Other 8 20%
Unknown 12 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 22%
Mathematics 4 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Engineering 3 7%
Computer Science 2 5%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 15 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 April 2021.
All research outputs
#4,533,702
of 23,148,322 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#727
of 2,040 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,993
of 421,452 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#12
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,148,322 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,040 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 421,452 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.