↓ Skip to main content

The prediction accuracy of dynamic mixed-effects models in clustered data

Overview of attention for article published in BioData Mining, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The prediction accuracy of dynamic mixed-effects models in clustered data
Published in
BioData Mining, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13040-016-0084-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brian S. Finkelman, Benjamin French, Stephen E. Kimmel

Abstract

Clinical prediction models often fail to generalize in the context of clustered data, because most models fail to account for heterogeneity in outcome values and covariate effects across clusters. Furthermore, standard approaches for modeling clustered data, including generalized linear mixed-effects models, would not be expected to provide accurate predictions in novel clusters, because such predictions are typically based on the hypothetical mean cluster. We hypothesized that dynamic mixed-effects models, which incorporate data from previous predictions to refine the model for future predictions, would allow for cluster-specific predictions in novel clusters as the model is updated over time, thus improving overall model generalizability. We quantified the potential gains in prediction accuracy from using a dynamic modeling strategy in a simulation study. Furthermore, because clinical prediction models in the context of clustered data often involve outcomes that are dependent on patient volume, we examined whether using dynamic mixed-effects models would be robust to misspecification of the volume-outcome relationship. Our results indicated that dynamic mixed-effects models led to substantial improvements in prediction accuracy in clustered populations over a broad range of conditions, and were uniformly superior to static models. In addition, dynamic mixed-effects models were particularly robust to misspecification of the volume-outcome relationship and to variation in the frequency of model updating. The extent of the improvement in prediction accuracy that was observed with dynamic mixed-effects models depended on the relative impact of fixed and random effects on the outcome as well as the degree of misspecification of model fixed effects. Dynamic mixed-effects models led to substantial improvements in prediction model accuracy across a broad range of simulated conditions. Therefore, dynamic mixed-effects models could be a useful alternative to standard static models for improving the generalizability of clinical prediction models in the setting of clustered data, and, thus, well worth the logistical challenges that may accompany their implementation in practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 34%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 22%
Other 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 5 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Mathematics 4 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 9%
Computer Science 2 6%
Other 9 28%
Unknown 7 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 16 November 2016.
All research outputs
#6,200,846
of 24,671,780 outputs
Outputs from BioData Mining
#117
of 319 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,844
of 406,958 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BioData Mining
#7
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,671,780 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 319 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 406,958 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 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 62% of its contemporaries.