Dataset Information

Development and external validation of the Psychosis Metabolic Risk Calculator (PsyMetRiC): a cardiometabolic risk prediction algorithm for young people with psychosis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Young people with psychosis are at high risk of developing cardiometabolic disorders; however, there is no suitable cardiometabolic risk prediction algorithm for this group. We aimed to develop and externally validate a cardiometabolic risk prediction algorithm for young people with psychosis.

Methods

We developed the Psychosis Metabolic Risk Calculator (PsyMetRiC) to predict up to 6-year risk of incident metabolic syndrome in young people (aged 16-35 years) with psychosis from commonly recorded information at baseline. We developed two PsyMetRiC versions using the forced entry method: a full model (including age, sex, ethnicity, body-mass index, smoking status, prescription of a metabolically active antipsychotic medication, HDL concentration, and triglyceride concentration) and a partial model excluding biochemical results. PsyMetRiC was developed using data from two UK psychosis early intervention services (Jan 1, 2013, to Nov 4, 2020) and externally validated in another UK early intervention service (Jan 1, 2012, to June 3, 2020). A sensitivity analysis was done in UK birth cohort participants (aged 18 years) who were at risk of developing psychosis. Algorithm performance was assessed primarily via discrimination (C statistic) and calibration (calibration plots). We did a decision curve analysis and produced an online data-visualisation app.

Findings

651 patients were included in the development samples, 510 in the validation sample, and 505 in the sensitivity analysis sample. PsyMetRiC performed well at internal (full model: C 0·80, 95% CI 0·74-0·86; partial model: 0·79, 0·73-0·84) and external validation (full model: 0·75, 0·69-0·80; and partial model: 0·74, 0·67-0·79). Calibration of the full model was good, but there was evidence of slight miscalibration of the partial model. At a cutoff score of 0·18, in the full model PsyMetRiC improved net benefit by 7·95% (sensitivity 75%, 95% CI 66-82; specificity 74%, 71-78), equivalent to detecting an additional 47% of metabolic syndrome cases.

Interpretation

We have developed an age-appropriate algorithm to predict the risk of incident metabolic syndrome, a precursor of cardiometabolic morbidity and mortality, in young people with psychosis. PsyMetRiC has the potential to become a valuable resource for early intervention service clinicians and could enable personalised, informed health-care decisions regarding choice of antipsychotic medication and lifestyle interventions.

Funding

National Institute for Health Research and Wellcome Trust.

SUBMITTER: Perry BI

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8211566 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCardiometabolic dysfunction is common in young people with psychosis. Recently, the Psychosis Metabolic Risk Calculator (PsyMetRiC) was developed and externally validated in the UK, predicting up-to six-year risk of metabolic syndrome (MetS) from routinely collected data. The full-model includes age, sex, ethnicity, body-mass index, smoking status, prescription of metabolically-active antipsychotic medication, high-density lipoprotein, and triglyceride concentrations; the partial-model excludes biochemical predictors.MethodsTo move toward a future internationally-useful tool, we externally validated PsyMetRiC in two independent European samples. We used data from the PsyMetab (Lausanne, Switzerland) and PAFIP (Cantabria, Spain) cohorts, including participants aged 16-35y without MetS at baseline who had 1-6y follow-up. Predictive performance was assessed primarily via discrimination (C-statistic), calibration (calibration plots), and decision curve analysis. Site-specific recalibration was considered.FindingsWe included 1024 participants (PsyMetab n=558, male=62%, outcome prevalence=19%, mean follow-up=2.48y; PAFIP n=466, male=65%, outcome prevalence=14%, mean follow-up=2.59y). Discrimination was better in the full- compared with partial-model (PsyMetab=full-model C=0.73, 95% C.I., 0.68-0.79, partial-model C=0.68, 95% C.I., 0.62-0.74; PAFIP=full-model C=0.72, 95% C.I., 0.66-0.78; partial-model C=0.66, 95% C.I., 0.60-0.71). As expected, calibration plots revealed varying degrees of miscalibration, which recovered following site-specific recalibration. PsyMetRiC showed net benefit in both new cohorts, more so after recalibration.InterpretationThe study provides evidence of PsyMetRiC's generalizability in Western Europe, although further local and international validation studies are required. In future, PsyMetRiC could help clinicians internationally to identify young people with psychosis who are at higher cardiometabolic risk, so interventions can be directed effectively to reduce long-term morbidity and mortality.FundingNIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre (BRC-1215-20014); The Wellcome Trust (201486/Z/16/Z); Swiss National Research Foundation (320030-120686, 324730- 144064, and 320030-173211); The Carlos III Health Institute (CM20/00015, FIS00/3095, PI020499, PI050427, and PI060507); IDIVAL (INT/A21/10 and INT/A20/04); The Andalusian Regional Government (A1-0055-2020 and A1-0005-2021); SENY Fundacion Research (2005-0308007); Fundacion Marques de Valdecilla (A/02/07, API07/011); Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness and the European Fund for Regional Development (SAF2016-76046-R and SAF2013-46292-R).For the Spanish and French translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Project description:ImportanceThe overall effect of At Risk Mental State (ARMS) services for the detection of individuals who will develop psychosis in secondary mental health care is undetermined.ObjectiveTo measure the proportion of individuals with a first episode of psychosis detected by ARMS services in secondary mental health services, and to develop and externally validate a practical web-based individualized risk calculator tool for the transdiagnostic prediction of psychosis in secondary mental health care.Design, setting, and participantsClinical register-based cohort study. Patients were drawn from electronic, real-world, real-time clinical records relating to 2008 to 2015 routine secondary mental health care in the South London and the Maudsley National Health Service Foundation Trust. The study included all patients receiving a first index diagnosis of nonorganic and nonpsychotic mental disorder within the South London and the Maudsley National Health Service Foundation Trust in the period between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2015. Data analysis began on September 1, 2016.Main outcomes and measuresRisk of development of nonorganic International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision psychotic disorders.ResultsA total of 91 199 patients receiving a first index diagnosis of nonorganic and nonpsychotic mental disorder within South London and the Maudsley National Health Service Foundation Trust were included in the derivation (n = 33 820) or external validation (n = 54 716) data sets. The mean age was 32.97 years, 50.88% were men, and 61.05% were white race/ethnicity. The mean follow-up was 1588 days. The overall 6-year risk of psychosis in secondary mental health care was 3.02 (95% CI, 2.88-3.15), which is higher than the 6-year risk in the local general population (0.62). Compared with the ARMS designation, all of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision diagnoses showed a lower risk of psychosis, with the exception of bipolar mood disorders (similar risk) and brief psychotic episodes (higher risk). The ARMS designation accounted only for a small proportion of transitions to psychosis (n = 52 of 1001; 5.19% in the derivation data set), indicating the need for transdiagnostic prediction of psychosis in secondary mental health care. A prognostic risk stratification model based on preselected variables, including index diagnosis, age, sex, age by sex, and race/ethnicity, was developed and externally validated, showing good performance and potential clinical usefulness.Conclusions and relevanceThis online individualized risk calculator can be of clinical usefulness for the transdiagnostic prediction of psychosis in secondary mental health care. The risk calculator can help to identify those patients at risk of developing psychosis who require an ARMS assessment and specialized care. The use of this calculator may eventually facilitate the implementation of an individualized provision of preventive focused interventions and improve outcomes of first episode psychosis.

Project description:Study designA retrospective, case-control study.ObjectiveWe aim to build a risk calculator predicting major perioperative complications after anterior cervical fusion. In addition, we aim to externally validate this calculator with an institutional cohort of patients who underwent anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF).Summary of background dataThe average age and proportion of patients with at least one comorbidity undergoing ACDF have increased in recent years. Given the increased morbidity and cost associated with perioperative complications and unplanned readmission, accurate risk stratification of patients undergoing ACDF is of great clinical utility.MethodsThis is a retrospective cohort study of adults who underwent anterior cervical fusion at any nonfederal California hospital between 2015 and 2017. The primary outcome was major perioperative complication or 30-day readmission. We built standard and ensemble machine learning models for risk prediction, assessing discrimination, and calibration. The best-performing model was validated on an external cohort comprised of consecutive adult patients who underwent ACDF at our institution between 2013 and 2020.ResultsA total of 23,184 patients were included in this study; there were 1886 cases of major complication or readmissions. The ensemble model was well calibrated and demonstrated an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.728. The variables most important for the ensemble model include male sex, medical comorbidities, history of complications, and teaching hospital status. The ensemble model was evaluated on the validation cohort (n=260) with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.802. The ensemble algorithm was used to build a web-based risk calculator.ConclusionWe report derivation and external validation of an ensemble algorithm for prediction of major perioperative complications and 30-day readmission after anterior cervical fusion. This model has excellent discrimination and is well calibrated when tested on a contemporaneous external cohort of ACDF cases.

Project description:Background & aimsThe Liver Cancer Risk test algorithm (LCR1-LCR2) is a multianalyte blood test combining proteins involved in liver cell repair (apolipoprotein-A1 and haptoglobin), known hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) risk factors (sex, age, and gamma-glutamyl transferase), a marker of fibrosis (alpha2-macroglobulin) and alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), a specific marker of HCC. The aim was to externally validate the LCR1-LCR2 in patients with chronic HCV (CHC) treated or not with antivirals.MethodsPre-included patients were from the Hepather cohort, a multicentre prospective study in adult patients with CHC in France. LCR1-LCR2 was assessed retrospectively in patients with the test components and AFP, available at baseline. The co-primary study outcome was the negative predictive value (NPV) of LCR1-LCR2 for the occurrence of HCC at 5 years and for survival without HCC according to the predetermined LCR1-LCR2 cut-offs. The cut-offs were adjusted for risk covariables and for the response to HCV treatment, and were quantified using time-dependent proportional hazards models.ResultsIn total, 4,903 patients, 1,026 (21.9%) with baseline cirrhosis, were included in the study. Patients were followed for a median of 5.7 (IQR 4.2-11.3) years. A total of 3,788/4,903 (77.3%) patients had a sustained virological response. There were 137 cases of HCC at 5 years and 214 at the end of follow-up. HCC occurred at 5 years in 24/3,755 patients with low-risk LCR1-LCR2 compared with 113/1,148 patients with high-risk LCR1-LCR2. The NPV was 99.4% (95% CI 99.1-99.6). Similar findings (hazard ratio, 10.8; 95% CI, 8.1-14.3; p <0.001) were obtained after adjustment for exposure to antivirals, age, sex, geographical origin, HCV genotype 3, alcohol consumption, and type 2 diabetes mellitus.ConclusionsThe results showed that LCR1-LCR2 can be used to successfully identify patients with HCV at very low risk of HCC at 5 years.Lay summaryHepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide and the fastest growing cause of cancer death in many countries. We constructed and internally validated a new multianalyte blood test to assess this Liver Cancer Risk (LCR1-LCR2). This study confirmed the performance of LCR1-LCR2 in patients with chronic HCV in the national French cohort Hepather, and its ability to identify patients at a very low risk of HCC at 5 years.Clinical trials registrationThe study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01953458).

Project description:BackgroundExternal validation of risk calculators (RCs) is necessary to determine their clinical applicability beyond the setting in which these were developed.ObjectiveTo assess the performance of the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer RC (RPCRC) and the Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group RC (PBCG-RC).Design setting and participantsWe used data from the prospective, population-based STHLM3 screening study, performed in 2012-2015. Participants with prostate-specific antigen ≥3 ng/ml who underwent systematic prostate biopsies were included.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisProbabilities for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), defined as International Society of Urological Pathology grade ≥2, were calculated for each participant. External validity was assessed by calibration, discrimination, and clinical usefulness for both original and recalibrated models.Results and limitationsOut of 5841 men, 1054 (18%) had csPCa. Distribution of risk predictions differed between RCs; median risks for csPCa using the RPCRC and PBCG-RC were 3.3% (interquartile range [IQR] 2.1-7.1%) and 20% (IQR 15-28%), respectively. The correlation between RC risk estimates on individual level was moderate (Spearman's r = 0.55). Using the RPCRC's recommended risk threshold of ≥4% for finding csPCa, 36% of participants would get concordant biopsy recommendations. At 10% risk cut-off, RCs agreed in 23% of cases. Both RCs showed good discrimination, with areas under the curves for the RPCRC of 0.74 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72-0.76) and the PBCG-RC of 0.70 (95% CI 0.68-0.72). Calibration was adequate using the PBCG-RC (calibration slope: 1.13 [95% CI 1.03-1.23]), but the RPCRC underestimated the risk of csPCa (calibration slope: 0.73 [0.68-0.79]). The PBCG-RC showed a net benefit in a decision curve analysis, whereas the RPCRC showed no net benefit at clinically relevant risk threshold levels. Recalibration improved clinical benefit, and differences between RCs decreased.ConclusionsAssessment of calibration is essential to ensure the clinical value of risk prediction tools. The PBCG-RC provided clinical benefit in its current version online. On the contrary, the RPCRC cannot be recommended in this setting.Patient summaryPredicting the probability of finding prostate cancer on biopsy differed between two assessed risk calculators. After recalibration, the agreement of the models improved, and both were shown to be clinically useful.