Dataset Information

External validation of clinical prediction models: simulation-based sample size calculations were more reliable than rules-of-thumb.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Sample size "rules-of-thumb" for external validation of clinical prediction models suggest at least 100 events and 100 non-events. Such blanket guidance is imprecise, and not specific to the model or validation setting. We investigate factors affecting precision of model performance estimates upon external validation, and propose a more tailored sample size approach.

Methods

Simulation of logistic regression prediction models to investigate factors associated with precision of performance estimates. Then, explanation and illustration of a simulation-based approach to calculate the minimum sample size required to precisely estimate a model's calibration, discrimination and clinical utility.

Results

Precision is affected by the model's linear predictor (LP) distribution, in addition to number of events and total sample size. Sample sizes of 100 (or even 200) events and non-events can give imprecise estimates, especially for calibration. The simulation-based calculation accounts for the LP distribution and (mis)calibration in the validation sample. Application identifies 2430 required participants (531 events) for external validation of a deep vein thrombosis diagnostic model.

Conclusion

Where researchers can anticipate the distribution of the model's LP (eg, based on development sample, or a pilot study), a simulation-based approach for calculating sample size for external validation offers more flexibility and reliability than rules-of-thumb.

SUBMITTER: Snell KIE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8352630 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Risk-prediction models for health outcomes are used in practice as part of clinical decision-making, and it is essential that their performance be externally validated. An important aspect in the design of a validation study is choosing an adequate sample size. In this paper, we investigate the sample size requirements for validation studies with binary outcomes to estimate measures of predictive performance (C-statistic for discrimination and calibration slope and calibration in the large). We aim for sufficient precision in the estimated measures. In addition, we investigate the sample size to achieve sufficient power to detect a difference from a target value. Under normality assumptions on the distribution of the linear predictor, we obtain simple estimators for sample size calculations based on the measures above. Simulation studies show that the estimators perform well for common values of the C-statistic and outcome prevalence when the linear predictor is marginally Normal. Their performance deteriorates only slightly when the normality assumptions are violated. We also propose estimators which do not require normality assumptions but require specification of the marginal distribution of the linear predictor and require the use of numerical integration. These estimators were also seen to perform very well under marginal normality. Our sample size equations require a specified standard error (SE) and the anticipated C-statistic and outcome prevalence. The sample size requirement varies according to the prognostic strength of the model, outcome prevalence, choice of the performance measure and study objective. For example, to achieve an SE < 0.025 for the C-statistic, 60-170 events are required if the true C-statistic and outcome prevalence are between 0.64-0.85 and 0.05-0.3, respectively. For the calibration slope and calibration in the large, achieving SE < 0.15 would require 40-280 and 50-100 events, respectively. Our estimators may also be used for survival outcomes when the proportion of censored observations is high.

Project description:Inference on disease dynamics is typically performed using case reporting time series of symptomatic disease. The inferred dynamics will vary depending on the reporting patterns and surveillance system for the disease in question, and the inference will miss mild or underreported epidemics. To eliminate the variation introduced by differing reporting patterns and to capture asymptomatic or subclinical infection, inferential methods can be applied to serological data sets instead of case reporting data. To reconstruct complete disease dynamics, one would need to collect a serological time series. In the statistical analysis presented here, we consider a particular kind of serological time series with repeated, periodic collections of population-representative serum. We refer to this study design as a serial seroepidemiology (SSE) design, and we base the analysis on our epidemiological knowledge of influenza. We consider a study duration of three to four years, during which a single antigenic type of influenza would be circulating, and we evaluate our ability to reconstruct disease dynamics based on serological data alone. We show that the processes of reinfection, antibody generation, and antibody waning confound each other and are not always statistically identifiable, especially when dynamics resemble a non-oscillating endemic equilibrium behavior. We introduce some constraints to partially resolve this confounding, and we show that transmission rates and basic reproduction numbers can be accurately estimated in SSE study designs. Seasonal forcing is more difficult to identify as serology-based studies only detect oscillations in antibody titers of recovered individuals, and these oscillations are typically weaker than those observed for infected individuals. To accurately estimate the magnitude and timing of seasonal forcing, serum samples should be collected every two months and 200 or more samples should be included in each collection; this sample size estimate is sensitive to the antibody waning rate and the assumed level of seasonal forcing.