Dataset Information

External validation and update of prediction models for unfavorable outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in Japan.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Most of the currently used prognostic models for COVID-19 are based on Western cohorts, but it is unknown whether any are applicable to patients with COVID-19 in Japan.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study included 160 patients with COVID-19 who were admitted to the National Center for Global Health and Medicine between January 26, 2020 and July 25, 2020. We searched PubMed for prognostic models for COVID-19. The predicted outcome was initiation of respiratory support or death. Performance of the candidate models was evaluated according to discrimination and calibration. We recalibrated the intercept of each model with our data. We also updated each model by adding β2-microglobulin (β2MG) to the model and recalculating the intercept and the coefficient of β2MG.

Results

Mean patient age was 49.8 years, 68% were male, 88.7% were Japanese. The study outcomes occurred in 15 patients, including two deaths. Two-hundred sixty-nine papers were screened, and four candidate prognostic models were assessed. The model of Bartoletti et al. had the highest area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) (0.88; 95% confidence interval 0.81-0.96). All four models overestimated the probability of occurrence of the outcome. None of the four models showed statistically significant improvement in AUCs by adding β2MG.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that the existing prediction models for COVID-19 overestimate the probability of occurrence of unfavorable outcomes in a Japanese cohort. When applying a prediction model to a different cohort, it is desirable to evaluate its performance according to the prevalent health situation in that region.

SUBMITTER: Yamada G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8041181 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionExternal validation studies are essential to study the generalizability of prediction models. Recently a permutation test, focusing on discrimination as quantified by the c-statistic, was proposed to judge whether a prediction model is transportable to a new setting. We aimed to evaluate this test and compare it to previously proposed procedures to judge any changes in c-statistic from development to external validation setting.MethodsWe compared the use of the permutation test to the use of benchmark values of the c-statistic following from a previously proposed framework to judge transportability of a prediction model. In a simulation study we developed a prediction model with logistic regression on a development set and validated them in the validation set. We concentrated on two scenarios: 1) the case-mix was more heterogeneous and predictor effects were weaker in the validation set compared to the development set, and 2) the case-mix was less heterogeneous in the validation set and predictor effects were identical in the validation and development set. Furthermore we illustrated the methods in a case study using 15 datasets of patients suffering from traumatic brain injury.ResultsThe permutation test indicated that the validation and development set were homogenous in scenario 1 (in almost all simulated samples) and heterogeneous in scenario 2 (in 17%-39% of simulated samples). Previously proposed benchmark values of the c-statistic and the standard deviation of the linear predictors correctly pointed at the more heterogeneous case-mix in scenario 1 and the less heterogeneous case-mix in scenario 2.ConclusionThe recently proposed permutation test may provide misleading results when externally validating prediction models in the presence of case-mix differences between the development and validation population. To correctly interpret the c-statistic found at external validation it is crucial to disentangle case-mix differences from incorrect regression coefficients.

Project description:ImportanceThe Epic Sepsis Model (ESM), a proprietary sepsis prediction model, is implemented at hundreds of US hospitals. The ESM's ability to identify patients with sepsis has not been adequately evaluated despite widespread use.ObjectiveTo externally validate the ESM in the prediction of sepsis and evaluate its potential clinical value compared with usual care.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study was conducted among 27 697 patients aged 18 years or older admitted to Michigan Medicine, the academic health system of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, with 38 455 hospitalizations between December 6, 2018, and October 20, 2019.ExposureThe ESM score, calculated every 15 minutes.Main outcomes and measuresSepsis, as defined by a composite of (1) the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention surveillance criteria and (2) International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision diagnostic codes accompanied by 2 systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria and 1 organ dysfunction criterion within 6 hours of one another. Model discrimination was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve at the hospitalization level and with prediction horizons of 4, 8, 12, and 24 hours. Model calibration was evaluated with calibration plots. The potential clinical benefit associated with the ESM was assessed by evaluating the added benefit of the ESM score compared with contemporary clinical practice (based on timely administration of antibiotics). Alert fatigue was evaluated by comparing the clinical value of different alerting strategies.ResultsWe identified 27 697 patients who had 38 455 hospitalizations (21 904 women [57%]; median age, 56 years [interquartile range, 35-69 years]) meeting inclusion criteria, of whom sepsis occurred in 2552 (7%). The ESM had a hospitalization-level area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.63 (95% CI, 0.62-0.64). The ESM identified 183 of 2552 patients with sepsis (7%) who did not receive timely administration of antibiotics, highlighting the low sensitivity of the ESM in comparison with contemporary clinical practice. The ESM also did not identify 1709 patients with sepsis (67%) despite generating alerts for an ESM score of 6 or higher for 6971 of all 38 455 hospitalized patients (18%), thus creating a large burden of alert fatigue.Conclusions and relevanceThis external validation cohort study suggests that the ESM has poor discrimination and calibration in predicting the onset of sepsis. The widespread adoption of the ESM despite its poor performance raises fundamental concerns about sepsis management on a national level.

Project description:BackgroundMany dementia prediction models have been developed, but only few have been externally validated, which hinders clinical uptake and may pose a risk if models are applied to actual patients regardless. Externally validating an existing prediction model is a difficult task, where we mostly rely on the completeness of model reporting in a published article. In this study, we aim to externally validate existing dementia prediction models. To that end, we define model reporting criteria, review published studies, and externally validate three well reported models using routinely collected health data from administrative claims and electronic health records.MethodsWe identified dementia prediction models that were developed between 2011 and 2020 and assessed if they could be externally validated given a set of model criteria. In addition, we externally validated three of these models (Walters' Dementia Risk Score, Mehta's RxDx-Dementia Risk Index, and Nori's ADRD dementia prediction model) on a network of six observational health databases from the United States, United Kingdom, Germany and the Netherlands, including the original development databases of the models.ResultsWe reviewed 59 dementia prediction models. All models reported the prediction method, development database, and target and outcome definitions. Less frequently reported by these 59 prediction models were predictor definitions (52 models) including the time window in which a predictor is assessed (21 models), predictor coefficients (20 models), and the time-at-risk (42 models). The validation of the model by Walters (development c-statistic: 0.84) showed moderate transportability (0.67-0.76 c-statistic). The Mehta model (development c-statistic: 0.81) transported well to some of the external databases (0.69-0.79 c-statistic). The Nori model (development AUROC: 0.69) transported well (0.62-0.68 AUROC) but performed modestly overall. Recalibration showed improvements for the Walters and Nori models, while recalibration could not be assessed for the Mehta model due to unreported baseline hazard.ConclusionWe observed that reporting is mostly insufficient to fully externally validate published dementia prediction models, and therefore, it is uncertain how well these models would work in other clinical settings. We emphasize the importance of following established guidelines for reporting clinical prediction models. We recommend that reporting should be more explicit and have external validation in mind if the model is meant to be applied in different settings.

Project description:ObjectiveTo externally validate various prognostic models and scoring rules for predicting short term mortality in patients admitted to hospital for covid-19.DesignTwo stage individual participant data meta-analysis.SettingSecondary and tertiary care.Participants46 914 patients across 18 countries, admitted to a hospital with polymerase chain reaction confirmed covid-19 from November 2019 to April 2021.Data sourcesMultiple (clustered) cohorts in Brazil, Belgium, China, Czech Republic, Egypt, France, Iran, Israel, Italy, Mexico, Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, and United States previously identified by a living systematic review of covid-19 prediction models published in The BMJ, and through PROSPERO, reference checking, and expert knowledge.Model selection and eligibility criteriaPrognostic models identified by the living systematic review and through contacting experts. A priori models were excluded that had a high risk of bias in the participant domain of PROBAST (prediction model study risk of bias assessment tool) or for which the applicability was deemed poor.MethodsEight prognostic models with diverse predictors were identified and validated. A two stage individual participant data meta-analysis was performed of the estimated model concordance (C) statistic, calibration slope, calibration-in-the-large, and observed to expected ratio (O:E) across the included clusters.Main outcome measures30 day mortality or in-hospital mortality.ResultsDatasets included 27 clusters from 18 different countries and contained data on 46 914patients. The pooled estimates ranged from 0.67 to 0.80 (C statistic), 0.22 to 1.22 (calibration slope), and 0.18 to 2.59 (O:E ratio) and were prone to substantial between study heterogeneity. The 4C Mortality Score by Knight et al (pooled C statistic 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.75 to 0.84, 95% prediction interval 0.72 to 0.86) and clinical model by Wang et al (0.77, 0.73 to 0.80, 0.63 to 0.87) had the highest discriminative ability. On average, 29% fewer deaths were observed than predicted by the 4C Mortality Score (pooled O:E 0.71, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 1.11, 95% prediction interval 0.21 to 2.39), 35% fewer than predicted by the Wang clinical model (0.65, 0.52 to 0.82, 0.23 to 1.89), and 4% fewer than predicted by Xie et al's model (0.96, 0.59 to 1.55, 0.21 to 4.28).ConclusionThe prognostic value of the included models varied greatly between the data sources. Although the Knight 4C Mortality Score and Wang clinical model appeared most promising, recalibration (intercept and slope updates) is needed before implementation in routine care.

Project description:Two neonatal mortality prediction models, the Neonatal Essential Treatment Score (NETS) which uses treatments prescribed at admission and the Score for Essential Neonatal Symptoms and Signs (SENSS) which uses basic clinical signs, were derived in high-mortality, low-resource settings to utilise data more likely to be available in these settings. In this study, we evaluate the predictive accuracy of two neonatal prediction models for all-cause in-hospital mortality. We used retrospectively collected routine clinical data recorded by duty clinicians at admission from 16 Kenyan hospitals used to externally validate and update the SENSS and NETS models that were initially developed from the data from the largest Kenyan maternity hospital to predict in-hospital mortality. Model performance was evaluated by assessing discrimination and calibration. Discrimination, the ability of the model to differentiate between those with and without the outcome, was measured using the c-statistic. Calibration, the agreement between predictions from the model and what was observed, was measured using the calibration intercept and slope (with values of 0 and 1 denoting perfect calibration). At initial external validation, the estimated mortality risks from the original SENSS and NETS models were markedly overestimated with calibration intercepts of - 0.703 (95% CI - 0.738 to - 0.669) and - 1.109 (95% CI - 1.148 to - 1.069) and too extreme with calibration slopes of 0.565 (95% CI 0.552 to 0.577) and 0.466 (95% CI 0.451 to 0.480), respectively. After model updating, the calibration of the model improved. The updated SENSS and NETS models had calibration intercepts of 0.311 (95% CI 0.282 to 0.350) and 0.032 (95% CI - 0.002 to 0.066) and calibration slopes of 1.029 (95% CI 1.006 to 1.051) and 0.799 (95% CI 0.774 to 0.823), respectively, while showing good discrimination with c-statistics of 0.834 (95% CI 0.829 to 0.839) and 0.775 (95% CI 0.768 to 0.782), respectively. The overall calibration performance of the updated SENSS and NETS models was better than any existing neonatal in-hospital mortality prediction models externally validated for settings comparable to Kenya. Few prediction models undergo rigorous external validation. We show how external validation using data from multiple locations enables model updating and improving their performance and potential value. The improved models indicate it is possible to predict in-hospital mortality using either treatments or signs and symptoms derived from routine neonatal data from low-resource hospital settings also making possible their use for case-mix adjustment when contrasting similar hospital settings.

Project description:Risk calculators can facilitate shared medical decision-making 1 . Demographics, comorbidities, medication use, geographic region, and other factors may increase the risk for COVID-19-related complications among patients with IBD 2,3 . Develop an individualized prognostic risk prediction tool for predicting the probability of adverse COVID-19 outcomes in patients with IBD. This study developed and validated prognostic penalized logistic regression models 4 using reports to Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion for Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SECURE-IBD) from March-October 2020. Model development was done using a training data set (85% of cases reported March 13 - September 15, 2020), and model validation was conducted using a test data set (the remaining 15% of cases plus all cases reported September 16-October 20, 2020). COVID-19 related:Hospitalization+: composite outcome of hospitalization, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, or deathICU+: composite outcome of ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, or deathDeathWe assessed the resulting models' discrimination using the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver-operator characteristic (ROC) curves and reported the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We included 2709 cases from 59 countries (mean age 41.2 years [s.d. 18], 50.2% male). A total of 633 (24%) were hospitalized, 137 (5%) were admitted to the ICU or intubated, and 69 (3%) died. 2009 patients comprised the training set and 700 the test set.The models demonstrated excellent discrimination, with a test set AUC (95% CI) of 0.79 (0.75, 0.83) for Hospitalization+, 0.88 (0.82, 0.95) for ICU+, and 0.94 (0.89, 0.99) for Death. Age, comorbidities, corticosteroid use, and male gender were associated with higher risk of death, while use of biologic therapies was associated with a lower risk. Prognostic models can effectively predict who is at higher risk for COVID-19-related adverse outcomes in a population of IBD patients. A free online risk calculator ( https://covidibd.org/covid-19-risk-calculator/ ) is available for healthcare providers to facilitate discussion of risks due to COVID-19 with IBD patients. The tool numerically and visually summarizes the patient's probabilities of adverse outcomes and associated CIs. Helping physicians identify their highest-risk patients will be important in the coming months as cases rise in the US and worldwide. This tool can also serve as a model for risk stratification in other chronic diseases. Question: How well can a multivariable risk model predict the risk of hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, or death due to COVID-19 in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)?Findings: Multivariable prediction models developed using data from an international voluntary registry of IBD patients and available for use online ( https://covidibd.org/ ) have very good discrimination for predicting hospitalization (Test set AUC 0.79) and excellent discrimination for ICU admission (Test set AUC 0.88) and death (Test set AUC 0.94). The models were developed with a training sample of 2009 cases and validated in an independent test sample of 700 cases comprised of a random sub-sample of cases and all cases entered in the registry during a one-month period after model development. Meaning: This risk prediction model may serve as an effective tool for healthcare providers to facilitate conversations about COVID-19-related risks with IBD patients.