Cargando…
Impact of sample size on the stability of risk scores from clinical prediction models: a case study in cardiovascular disease
BACKGROUND: Stability of risk estimates from prediction models may be highly dependent on the sample size of the dataset available for model derivation. In this paper, we evaluate the stability of cardiovascular disease risk scores for individual patients when using different sample sizes for model...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7487849/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32944655 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41512-020-00082-3 |
_version_ | 1783581573748097024 |
---|---|
author | Pate, Alexander Emsley, Richard Sperrin, Matthew Martin, Glen P. van Staa, Tjeerd |
author_facet | Pate, Alexander Emsley, Richard Sperrin, Matthew Martin, Glen P. van Staa, Tjeerd |
author_sort | Pate, Alexander |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Stability of risk estimates from prediction models may be highly dependent on the sample size of the dataset available for model derivation. In this paper, we evaluate the stability of cardiovascular disease risk scores for individual patients when using different sample sizes for model derivation; such sample sizes include those similar to models recommended in the national guidelines, and those based on recently published sample size formula for prediction models. METHODS: We mimicked the process of sampling N patients from a population to develop a risk prediction model by sampling patients from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. A cardiovascular disease risk prediction model was developed on this sample and used to generate risk scores for an independent cohort of patients. This process was repeated 1000 times, giving a distribution of risks for each patient. N = 100,000, 50,000, 10,000, N(min) (derived from sample size formula) and N(epv10) (meets 10 events per predictor rule) were considered. The 5–95th percentile range of risks across these models was used to evaluate instability. Patients were grouped by a risk derived from a model developed on the entire population (population-derived risk) to summarise results. RESULTS: For a sample size of 100,000, the median 5–95th percentile range of risks for patients across the 1000 models was 0.77%, 1.60%, 2.42% and 3.22% for patients with population-derived risks of 4–5%, 9–10%, 14–15% and 19–20% respectively; for N = 10,000, it was 2.49%, 5.23%, 7.92% and 10.59%, and for N using the formula-derived sample size, it was 6.79%, 14.41%, 21.89% and 29.21%. Restricting this analysis to models with high discrimination, good calibration or small mean absolute prediction error reduced the percentile range, but high levels of instability remained. CONCLUSIONS: Widely used cardiovascular disease risk prediction models suffer from high levels of instability induced by sampling variation. Many models will also suffer from overfitting (a closely linked concept), but at acceptable levels of overfitting, there may still be high levels of instability in individual risk. Stability of risk estimates should be a criterion when determining the minimum sample size to develop models. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7487849 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-74878492020-09-16 Impact of sample size on the stability of risk scores from clinical prediction models: a case study in cardiovascular disease Pate, Alexander Emsley, Richard Sperrin, Matthew Martin, Glen P. van Staa, Tjeerd Diagn Progn Res Research BACKGROUND: Stability of risk estimates from prediction models may be highly dependent on the sample size of the dataset available for model derivation. In this paper, we evaluate the stability of cardiovascular disease risk scores for individual patients when using different sample sizes for model derivation; such sample sizes include those similar to models recommended in the national guidelines, and those based on recently published sample size formula for prediction models. METHODS: We mimicked the process of sampling N patients from a population to develop a risk prediction model by sampling patients from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. A cardiovascular disease risk prediction model was developed on this sample and used to generate risk scores for an independent cohort of patients. This process was repeated 1000 times, giving a distribution of risks for each patient. N = 100,000, 50,000, 10,000, N(min) (derived from sample size formula) and N(epv10) (meets 10 events per predictor rule) were considered. The 5–95th percentile range of risks across these models was used to evaluate instability. Patients were grouped by a risk derived from a model developed on the entire population (population-derived risk) to summarise results. RESULTS: For a sample size of 100,000, the median 5–95th percentile range of risks for patients across the 1000 models was 0.77%, 1.60%, 2.42% and 3.22% for patients with population-derived risks of 4–5%, 9–10%, 14–15% and 19–20% respectively; for N = 10,000, it was 2.49%, 5.23%, 7.92% and 10.59%, and for N using the formula-derived sample size, it was 6.79%, 14.41%, 21.89% and 29.21%. Restricting this analysis to models with high discrimination, good calibration or small mean absolute prediction error reduced the percentile range, but high levels of instability remained. CONCLUSIONS: Widely used cardiovascular disease risk prediction models suffer from high levels of instability induced by sampling variation. Many models will also suffer from overfitting (a closely linked concept), but at acceptable levels of overfitting, there may still be high levels of instability in individual risk. Stability of risk estimates should be a criterion when determining the minimum sample size to develop models. BioMed Central 2020-09-09 /pmc/articles/PMC7487849/ /pubmed/32944655 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41512-020-00082-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Research Pate, Alexander Emsley, Richard Sperrin, Matthew Martin, Glen P. van Staa, Tjeerd Impact of sample size on the stability of risk scores from clinical prediction models: a case study in cardiovascular disease |
title | Impact of sample size on the stability of risk scores from clinical prediction models: a case study in cardiovascular disease |
title_full | Impact of sample size on the stability of risk scores from clinical prediction models: a case study in cardiovascular disease |
title_fullStr | Impact of sample size on the stability of risk scores from clinical prediction models: a case study in cardiovascular disease |
title_full_unstemmed | Impact of sample size on the stability of risk scores from clinical prediction models: a case study in cardiovascular disease |
title_short | Impact of sample size on the stability of risk scores from clinical prediction models: a case study in cardiovascular disease |
title_sort | impact of sample size on the stability of risk scores from clinical prediction models: a case study in cardiovascular disease |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7487849/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32944655 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41512-020-00082-3 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT patealexander impactofsamplesizeonthestabilityofriskscoresfromclinicalpredictionmodelsacasestudyincardiovasculardisease AT emsleyrichard impactofsamplesizeonthestabilityofriskscoresfromclinicalpredictionmodelsacasestudyincardiovasculardisease AT sperrinmatthew impactofsamplesizeonthestabilityofriskscoresfromclinicalpredictionmodelsacasestudyincardiovasculardisease AT martinglenp impactofsamplesizeonthestabilityofriskscoresfromclinicalpredictionmodelsacasestudyincardiovasculardisease AT vanstaatjeerd impactofsamplesizeonthestabilityofriskscoresfromclinicalpredictionmodelsacasestudyincardiovasculardisease |