TY - JOUR
T1 - Predicting hospital admissions from individual patient data (IPD)
T2 - An applied example to explore key elements driving external validity
AU - Meid, Andreas Daniel
AU - Gonzalez-Gonzalez, Ana Isabel
AU - DInh, Truc Sophia
AU - Blom, Jeanet
AU - Van Den Akker, Marjan
AU - Elders, Petra
AU - Thiem, Ulrich
AU - Küllenberg De Gaudry, Daniela
AU - Swart, Karin M.A.
AU - Rudolf, Henrik
AU - Bosch-Lenders, Donna
AU - Trampisch, Hans J.
AU - Meerpohl, Joerg J.
AU - Gerlach, Ferdinand M.
AU - Flaig, Benno
AU - Kom, Ghainsom
AU - Snell, Kym I.E.
AU - Perera, Rafael
AU - Haefeli, Walter Emil
AU - Glasziou, Paul
AU - Muth, Christiane
N1 - Funding Information:
Funding This work was supported by the German Innovation Fund in accordance with § 92a (2) Volume V of the Social Insurance Code (§ 92a Abs. 2, SGB V - Fünftes Buch Sozialgesetzbuch), grant number: 01VSF16018. ADM is sponsored by the Physician-Scientist Programme of Heidelberg University, Faculty of Medicine. Rafael Perera receives funding from the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Council (BRC), the NIHR Oxford Medtech and In-Vitro Diagnostics Co-operative (MIC), the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) Oxford and Thames Valley, and the Oxford Martin School. KIES is sponsored by the National Institute for Health Research School for Primary Care Research (NIHR SPCR Launching Fellowship).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 International Association for Bear Research and Management. All rights reserved.
PY - 2021/8/4
Y1 - 2021/8/4
N2 - Objective To explore factors that potentially impact external validation performance while developing and validating a prognostic model for hospital admissions (HAs) in complex older general practice patients. Study design and setting Using individual participant data from four cluster-randomised trials conducted in the Netherlands and Germany, we used logistic regression to develop a prognostic model to predict all-cause HAs within a 6-month follow-up period. A stratified intercept was used to account for heterogeneity in baseline risk between the studies. The model was validated both internally and by using internal-external cross-validation (IECV). Results Prior HAs, physical components of the health-related quality of life comorbidity index, and medication-related variables were used in the final model. While achieving moderate discriminatory performance, internal bootstrap validation revealed a pronounced risk of overfitting. The results of the IECV, in which calibration was highly variable even after accounting for between-study heterogeneity, agreed with this finding. Heterogeneity was equally reflected in differing baseline risk, predictor effects and absolute risk predictions. Conclusions Predictor effect heterogeneity and differing baseline risk can explain the limited external performance of HA prediction models. With such drivers known, model adjustments in external validation settings (eg, intercept recalibration, complete updating) can be applied more purposefully. Trial registration number PROSPERO id: CRD42018088129.
AB - Objective To explore factors that potentially impact external validation performance while developing and validating a prognostic model for hospital admissions (HAs) in complex older general practice patients. Study design and setting Using individual participant data from four cluster-randomised trials conducted in the Netherlands and Germany, we used logistic regression to develop a prognostic model to predict all-cause HAs within a 6-month follow-up period. A stratified intercept was used to account for heterogeneity in baseline risk between the studies. The model was validated both internally and by using internal-external cross-validation (IECV). Results Prior HAs, physical components of the health-related quality of life comorbidity index, and medication-related variables were used in the final model. While achieving moderate discriminatory performance, internal bootstrap validation revealed a pronounced risk of overfitting. The results of the IECV, in which calibration was highly variable even after accounting for between-study heterogeneity, agreed with this finding. Heterogeneity was equally reflected in differing baseline risk, predictor effects and absolute risk predictions. Conclusions Predictor effect heterogeneity and differing baseline risk can explain the limited external performance of HA prediction models. With such drivers known, model adjustments in external validation settings (eg, intercept recalibration, complete updating) can be applied more purposefully. Trial registration number PROSPERO id: CRD42018088129.
KW - general medicine (see internal medicine)
KW - geriatric medicine
KW - risk management
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85112363803&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045572
DO - 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045572
M3 - Article
C2 - 34348947
VL - 11
JO - BMJ Open
JF - BMJ Open
SN - 2044-6055
IS - 8
M1 - e045572
ER -