The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 17 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
A calibration hierarchy for risk models was defined: from utopia to empirical data
Open accessAbstract
Objective Calibrated risk models are vital for valid decision support. We define four levels of calibration and describe implications for model development and external validation of predictions.Study design and setting We present results based on simulated data sets.Results A common definition of calibration is "having an event rate of R% among patients with a predicted risk of R%," which we refer to as "moderate calibration." Weaker forms of calibration only require the average predicted risk (mean calibration) or the average prediction effects (weak calibration) to be correct. "Strong calibration" requires that the event rate equals the predicted risk for every covariate pattern. This implies that the model is fully correct for the validation setting. We argue that this is unrealistic: the model type may be incorrect, the linear predictor is only asymptotically unbiased, and all nonlinear and interaction effects should be correctly modeled. In addition, we prove that moderate calibration guarantees nonharmful decision making. Finally, results indicate that a flexible assessment of calibration in small validation data sets is problematic.Conclusion Strong calibration is desirable for individualized decision support but unrealistic and counter productive by stimulating the development of overly complex models. Model development and external validation should focus on moderate calibration.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
0 of 17 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was some miscalibration in mean risk for Examples 1-2 where the development sample was small, even though the correct underlying model formulation was estimated.”
§ A calibration hierarchy for risk models was defined: from utopia to empirical data > 3.1. Level 1: mean calibration (Calibration-in-the-large)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Enlarging the development dataset alleviated the problems (Example 4 in Table 1, Figure 1D).”
§ A calibration hierarchy for risk models was defined: from utopia to empirical data > 2.2. Illustration: Examples 1-5 For illustration, we consider five simulated examples, as previously presented [5].We randomly generate four independent predictor variables to .These predictor variables are ordinal with three categories (-1, 0, and 1) that each have 33% prevalence in order to visualize calibration by covariate pattern.Let outcome be generated by an underlying logistic regression model with the true linear predictor , hence the intercept equals 0, and to are assumed to have linear main effects [5].In simulations, the true probability of event is calculated using the linear predictor and the observed outcome is generated as a Bernoulli variable from .Then, we develop a model to predict based on to , which means that we are using the correct model formulation.Finally, we validate on a new dataset that is generated with the exact same procedure.We repeat this process four times to illustrate the influence of random variability: (1) using 100 simulated patients for development and 100 for validation, (2) using 100 for development and 10,000 for validation, (3) using 10,000 for development and 100 for validation, (4) using 10,000 for development and 10,000 for validation, and (5) using 10 million for development and 10 million for validation.Estimation of model coefficients was unstable when the development data contains only 100 patients (Table 1), despite having more than 10 events per variable (4 parameters, 44 non-events, 56 events).Risk estimates were overfitted, as evidenced by the calibration slope and calibration curves at validation (Example 2 in Table 1, and Figure 1B) as well as the calibration curves.Further, the calibration intercept was negative which is suggestive of general overestimation.Enlarging the development dataset alleviated the problems (Example 4 in Table 1, Figure 1D).Similar issues emerge when using a small validation dataset (Figures 1A and 1C.Calibration results for Examples 1 and 3 are unstable, in particular the flexible calibration curve.With 10 million patients the coefficient estimates and calibration results were perfect (Table 1, Figure 1E).
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results suggest that the flexible calibration curve is more variable and hence requires more data than the calibration slope for a stable assessment.”
§ A calibration hierarchy for risk models was defined: from utopia to empirical data > 8. Sample size at external validation
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is clear that observed calibration curves will easily deviate from the diagonal line even when the model is moderately or strongly calibrated.”
§ A calibration hierarchy for risk models was defined: from utopia to empirical data > 8. Sample size at external validation
Load-bearingStrength:boosted· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesThe paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, the decision curve for the true model is the best one.”
§ A calibration hierarchy for risk models was defined: from utopia to empirical data > 4. Calibration, decision-making, and clinical utility
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Again, only the flexible calibration curve reveals that calibration is problematic.”
§ A calibration hierarchy for risk models was defined: from utopia to empirical data > 3.4. Missing non-linearity or interaction: examples 6-7
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesThe paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The moderately recalibrated version does not have that problem anymore: Net Benefit is now at least as high as that of the default strategies.”
§ A calibration hierarchy for risk models was defined: from utopia to empirical data > 4. Calibration, decision-making, and clinical utility
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The original model has Net Benefit below that of treat all or treat none for a subset of risk thresholds (Figure 5).”
§ A calibration hierarchy for risk models was defined: from utopia to empirical data > 4. Calibration, decision-making, and clinical utility
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For larger development datasets the disagreement between observed and predicted risks disappeared (Examples 3-5).”
§ A calibration hierarchy for risk models was defined: from utopia to empirical data > 3.1. Level 1: mean calibration (Calibration-in-the-large)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“results indicate that a flexible assessment of calibration in small validation datasets is problematic.”
- Also stated in: § 2.2. Illustration: Examples 1-5 For illustration, we consider five simulated examples, as previously presented [5].We randomly generate four independent predictor variables to .These predictor variables are ordinal with three categories (-1, 0, and 1) that each have 33% prevalence in order to visualize calibration by covariate pattern.Let outcome be generated by an underlying logistic regression model with the true linear predictor , hence the intercept equals 0, and to are assumed to have linear main effects [5].In simulations, the true probability of event is calculated using the linear predictor and the observed outcome is generated as a Bernoulli variable from .Then, we develop a model to predict based on to , which means that we are using the correct model formulation.Finally, we validate on a new dataset that is generated with the exact same procedure.We repeat this process four times to illustrate the influence of random variability: (1) using 100 simulated patients for development and 100 for validation, (2) using 100 for development and 10,000 for validation, (3) using 10,000 for development and 100 for validation, (4) using 10,000 for development and 10,000 for validation, and (5) using 10 million for development and 10 million for validation.Estimation of model coefficients was unstable when the development data contains only 100 patients (Table 1), despite having more than 10 events per variable (4 parameters, 44 non-events, 56 events).Risk estimates were overfitted, as evidenced by the calibration slope and calibration curves at validation (Example 2 in Table 1, and Figure 1B) as well as the calibration curves.Further, the calibration intercept was negative which is suggestive of general overestimation.Enlarging the development dataset alleviated the problems (Example 4 in Table 1, Figure 1D).Similar issues emerge when using a small validation dataset (Figures 1A and 1C.Calibration results for Examples 1 and 3 are unstable, in particular the flexible calibration curve.With 10 million patients the coefficient estimates and calibration results were perfect (Table 1, Figure 1E). · plain
“Calibration results for Examples 1 and 3 are unstable, in particular the flexible calibration curve.”
§ A calibration hierarchy for risk models was defined: from utopia to empirical data > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Also stated in: § 2.2. Illustration: Examples 1-5 For illustration, we consider five simulated examples, as previously presented [5].We randomly generate four independent predictor variables to .These predictor variables are ordinal with three categories (-1, 0, and 1) that each have 33% prevalence in order to visualize calibration by covariate pattern.Let outcome be generated by an underlying logistic regression model with the true linear predictor , hence the intercept equals 0, and to are assumed to have linear main effects [5].In simulations, the true probability of event is calculated using the linear predictor and the observed outcome is generated as a Bernoulli variable from .Then, we develop a model to predict based on to , which means that we are using the correct model formulation.Finally, we validate on a new dataset that is generated with the exact same procedure.We repeat this process four times to illustrate the influence of random variability: (1) using 100 simulated patients for development and 100 for validation, (2) using 100 for development and 10,000 for validation, (3) using 10,000 for development and 100 for validation, (4) using 10,000 for development and 10,000 for validation, and (5) using 10 million for development and 10 million for validation.Estimation of model coefficients was unstable when the development data contains only 100 patients (Table 1), despite having more than 10 events per variable (4 parameters, 44 non-events, 56 events).Risk estimates were overfitted, as evidenced by the calibration slope and calibration curves at validation (Example 2 in Table 1, and Figure 1B) as well as the calibration curves.Further, the calibration intercept was negative which is suggestive of general overestimation.Enlarging the development dataset alleviated the problems (Example 4 in Table 1, Figure 1D).Similar issues emerge when using a small validation dataset (Figures 1A and 1C.Calibration results for Examples 1 and 3 are unstable, in particular the flexible calibration curve.With 10 million patients the coefficient estimates and calibration results were perfect (Table 1, Figure 1E). · plain
- It may state two separate claims as one. 14
- Probably not a substantial claim. 9
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This model exhibits perfect strong calibration: both calibration curves and all covariate patterns coincide with the diagonal.”
§ A calibration hierarchy for risk models was defined: from utopia to empirical data > 3.6. Model misspecification: Examples 8-9
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 10Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, the model is weakly but not moderately calibrated on the development data.”
§ A calibration hierarchy for risk models was defined: from utopia to empirical data > 3.4. Missing non-linearity or interaction: examples 6-7
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 10,000Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This model exhibits perfect moderate calibration but lacks strong calibration because results per covariate pattern are scattered around the diagonal.”
§ A calibration hierarchy for risk models was defined: from utopia to empirical data > 3.6. Model misspecification: Examples 8-9
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With 10 million patients the coefficient estimates and calibration results were perfect (Table 1, Figure 1E).”
§ A calibration hierarchy for risk models was defined: from utopia to empirical data > 2.2. Illustration: Examples 1-5 For illustration, we consider five simulated examples, as previously presented [5].We randomly generate four independent predictor variables to .These predictor variables are ordinal with three categories (-1, 0, and 1) that each have 33% prevalence in order to visualize calibration by covariate pattern.Let outcome be generated by an underlying logistic regression model with the true linear predictor , hence the intercept equals 0, and to are assumed to have linear main effects [5].In simulations, the true probability of event is calculated using the linear predictor and the observed outcome is generated as a Bernoulli variable from .Then, we develop a model to predict based on to , which means that we are using the correct model formulation.Finally, we validate on a new dataset that is generated with the exact same procedure.We repeat this process four times to illustrate the influence of random variability: (1) using 100 simulated patients for development and 100 for validation, (2) using 100 for development and 10,000 for validation, (3) using 10,000 for development and 100 for validation, (4) using 10,000 for development and 10,000 for validation, and (5) using 10 million for development and 10 million for validation.Estimation of model coefficients was unstable when the development data contains only 100 patients (Table 1), despite having more than 10 events per variable (4 parameters, 44 non-events, 56 events).Risk estimates were overfitted, as evidenced by the calibration slope and calibration curves at validation (Example 2 in Table 1, and Figure 1B) as well as the calibration curves.Further, the calibration intercept was negative which is suggestive of general overestimation.Enlarging the development dataset alleviated the problems (Example 4 in Table 1, Figure 1D).Similar issues emerge when using a small validation dataset (Figures 1A and 1C.Calibration results for Examples 1 and 3 are unstable, in particular the flexible calibration curve.With 10 million patients the coefficient estimates and calibration results were perfect (Table 1, Figure 1E).
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 10Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, strong calibration requires that the model form (e.g. a generalized linear model such as logistic regression) is correct.”
§ A calibration hierarchy for risk models was defined: from utopia to empirical data > 5. Strong calibration: realistic or utopic?
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Refitting should lead to moderate calibration, although this may also require reassessment of nonlinear effects.”
§ A calibration hierarchy for risk models was defined: from utopia to empirical data > 7. A link with model updating
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“in reality, the true model is unknown, may not have a generalized linear form, or may not even exist [22].”
§ A calibration hierarchy for risk models was defined: from utopia to empirical data > 5. Strong calibration: realistic or utopic?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [22] Chatfield, 1995, Model uncertainty, data mining and statistical inference, J R Stat Soc Ser A source
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes? Checkable: unclear✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In sum, aiming for strong calibration requires the assumption that the model formulation is fully correct, and that unbiased model coefficients as well as unbiased linear predictors are obtained.”
§ A calibration hierarchy for risk models was defined: from utopia to empirical data > 5. Strong calibration: realistic or utopic?
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This method addresses lack of weak calibration, but does not guarantee moderate calibration unless all coefficients were biased by the same rate.”
§ A calibration hierarchy for risk models was defined: from utopia to empirical data > 7. A link with model updating
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we prove (see Appendix) that clinical utility in terms of Net Benefit will not be lower than the default strategies that either classify everyone as having the event or as not having the event.”
- Also stated in: § 6. Moderate calibration: a pragmatic guarantee for non-harmful decision-making · plain
“moderate calibration guarantees that decision-making based on the model is not clinically harmful.”
§ A calibration hierarchy for risk models was defined: from utopia to empirical data > 4. Calibration, decision-making, and clinical utility
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Also stated in: § 6. Moderate calibration: a pragmatic guarantee for non-harmful decision-making · plain
In the paper
“For example, strong interactions or nonlinearities may lead to miscalibration in the development sample although weak calibration is perfect [11].”
§ A calibration hierarchy for risk models was defined: from utopia to empirical data > 3.3. Level 3: moderate calibration
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [11] Austin, 2014, Graphical assessment of internal and external calibration of logistic regression models by using loess smoothers, Stat Med source
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Third, strong calibration not only requires correctly estimated regression coefficients for the main effects of model predictors, but also requires fully correct modeling of all nonlinear and non-additive effects.”
§ A calibration hierarchy for risk models was defined: from utopia to empirical data > 5. Strong calibration: realistic or utopic?
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For a moderately calibrated model the following property holds, among patients with an estimated risk of % on average out of 100 of these patients have the event.”
§ A calibration hierarchy for risk models was defined: from utopia to empirical data > Additional information
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The odds of the risk threshold is the harm-to-benefit ratio, i.e. the ratio of the harm of a false positive and the benefit of a true positive classification[21].”
§ A calibration hierarchy for risk models was defined: from utopia to empirical data > cex.d01
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [21] Pauker, 1975, Therapeutic decision making: a cost-benefit analysis, N Engl J Med source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“This suggests that moderate calibration prevents the model from becoming harmful [18] but that strong calibration may further enhance the model's clinical utility.”
§ A calibration hierarchy for risk models was defined: from utopia to empirical data > 4. Calibration, decision-making, and clinical utility
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [18] Van Calster, 2015, Calibration of risk prediction models: impact on decision-analytic performance, Med Decis Making source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This will only address calibration-in-the-large, but does not guarantee weak calibration.”
§ A calibration hierarchy for risk models was defined: from utopia to empirical data > 7. A link with model updating
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“While still providing sensible risk predictions, simple models that are for example moderately but not strongly calibrated often have many practical advantages such as transparency or ease of use [33].”
§ A calibration hierarchy for risk models was defined: from utopia to empirical data > 6. Moderate calibration: a pragmatic guarantee for non-harmful decision-making
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [33] Marewski, 2012, Heuristic decision making in medicine, Dialogues Clin Neurosci source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This means that at least part of the measurement error is systematic, and further thwarts the concept of the existence of a true model.”
§ A calibration hierarchy for risk models was defined: from utopia to empirical data > 5. Strong calibration: realistic or utopic?
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Calibration is a pivotal aspect of model performance [2][3][4]”
§ A calibration hierarchy for risk models was defined: from utopia to empirical data > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [2] Steyerberg, 2009
- Not checked yetcites [3] Kim, 2011, Probabilistic classifiers with high-dimensional data, Biostatistics source
- Not checked yetcites [4] Pepe, 2013, Methods for evaluating prediction performance of biomarkers and tests
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“measurement error of the predictors is in practice often ignored although it is known that this is a common phenomenon that can bias regression coefficients [28].”
§ A calibration hierarchy for risk models was defined: from utopia to empirical data > 5. Strong calibration: realistic or utopic?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [28] Fuller, 1987
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If the model's Net Benefit is lower than that of a default strategy, then using the model to support decision-making can be considered as clinically harmful.”
§ A calibration hierarchy for risk models was defined: from utopia to empirical data > cex.d01
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In previous simulations, the Hosmer-Lemeshow test showed such poor performance that it may not be recommended for routine use [7,37].”
§ A calibration hierarchy for risk models was defined: from utopia to empirical data > 9. Statistical testing for calibration
What the sources say
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Net Benefit accounts for the different consequences of true and false positives through the risk threshold, i.e. the risk at which one is indifferent about classifying a patient as having the event (and providing treatment) or not.”
§ A calibration hierarchy for risk models was defined: from utopia to empirical data > cex.d01
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
Calibrated risk models are vital for valid decision support.
“Calibrated risk models are vital for valid decision support.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“These approaches can be classified into three increasingly stringent levels, labelled as mean, weak, and moderate calibration. 52”
From Evaluation of performance measures in predictive artificial intelligence models to support medical decisions: overview and guidance (2025) · cites this paper as [52]
In the citing paper
“All discussed calibration measures are semi-proper, 52”
From Evaluation of performance measures in predictive artificial intelligence models to support medical decisions: overview and guidance (2025) · cites this paper as [52]
In the citing paper
“Estimated probabilities with too much spread are on average too close to 0 and 1 (slope < 1), whereas estimated probabilities with too little spread are on average too close to the prevalence (slope > 1).”
From Evaluation of performance measures in predictive artificial intelligence models to support medical decisions: overview and guidance (2025) · cites this paper as [52]
In the citing paper
“Previous recommendations were to include at least 100 to 200 individuals in the smallest outcome category.”
From Evaluation of performance measures in predictive artificial intelligence models to support medical decisions: overview and guidance (2025) · cites this paper as [52]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Figure 5 identifies the wrong example
MinorThe discussion says Figure 5 compares decision curves for Example 9, the miscalibrated model. The figure caption instead identifies Example 8, which the paper describes as moderately calibrated.
“Let us consider Example 9 (Figure 3C).The model presented is not calibrated in a weak sense.We derived decision curves to assess the clinical utility of (1) the original miscalibrated model, (2) a recalibrated model to ensure moderate calibration, and (3) the strongly calibrated true model (Figure 5).”
“Figure: 5 Figure 5 . Figure 5. Decision curves for Example 8 to assess clinical usefulness.”
Citations
Cites
Regression Modeling Strategies
Harrell, F. E. (2001) · Springer series in statistics · doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-3462-1 · Cited by 9,270
Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models
Vickers, A. J., & Elkin, E. B. (2006) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x06295361 · Cited by 6,341
Assessing the Performance of Prediction Models: A Framework for Traditional and Novel Measures
Steyerberg, E. W., Vickers, A. J., Cook, N. R., Gerds, T., Gonen, M., Obuchowski, N., Pencina, M. J., & Kattan, M. W. (2010) · Epidemiology · doi:10.1097/ede.0b013e3181c30fb2 · Cited by 5,170
Self-citationClinical Prediction Models: A Practical Approach to Development, Validation, and Updating
Steyerberg, E. W. (2019) · Statistics for Biology and Health · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-16399-0 · Cited by 3,281
Self-citationStefanski, L. A., Fuller, W. A., & Wiley, J. (1988) · Journal of Business and Economic Statistics · doi:10.2307/1391893 · Cited by 2,825
Dichotomizing continuous predictors in multiple regression: a bad idea
Royston, P., Altman, D. G., & Sauerbrei, W. (2006) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.2331 · Cited by 2,312
Rao, S. J. (2003) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1198/jasa.2003.s263 · Cited by 1,967
The number of subjects per variable required in linear regression analyses
Austin, P. C., & Steyerberg, E. W. (2015) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.12.014 · Cited by 1,145
Self-citationModel uncertainty, data mining and statistical inference
Chatfield, C. (1995) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (Statistics in Society) · doi:10.2307/2983440 · Cited by 1,103
Clinical Prediction Models: A Practical Approach to Development, Validation and Updating
Mann, C. J. H. (2009) · Kybernetes · doi:10.1108/k.2009.06738fae.002 · Cited by 794
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–200 of 918
Verburg, I. W. M., Holman, R., Peek, N. B., Abu–Hanna, A., & de Keizer, N. F. (2017) · Statistical Methods in Medical Research · doi:10.1177/0962280217700169 · Cited by 54
Thomas, L. E., O'Brien, E. C., Piccini, J. P., D’Agostino, R. B., & Pencina, M. J. (2018) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehy345 · Cited by 54
Self-citationExternal Validation of the MEESSI Acute Heart Failure Risk Score
Wussler, D. N., Kozhuharov, N., Sabti, Z., Walter, J. E., Strebel, I., Scholl, L., Miró, Ò., Rosselló, X., Martín‐Sánchez, F. J., Pocock, S., et al. (2019) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m18-1967 · Cited by 54
Venema, E., Roozenbeek, B., Mulder, M. J. H. L., Brown, S. B., Majoie, C. B. L. M., Steyerberg, E. W., Demchuk, A. M., Muir, K. W., Dávalos, A., Mitchell, P. J., et al. (2021) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.120.032935 · Cited by 53
Self-citationNestsiarovich, A., Reps, J., Matheny, M. E., DuVall, S. L., Lynch, K. E., Beaton, M., Jiang, X., Spotnitz, H. M., Pfohl, S. R., Shah, N. H., et al. (2021) · Translational Psychiatry · doi:10.1038/s41398-021-01760-6 · Cited by 55
Villar, J., González-Martín, J. M., Hernández-González, J., de la Hoz, M. Á. A., Fernández, C., Martín-Rodríguez, C., Mosteiro, F., Martínez, D., Sánchez-Ballesteros, J., Ferrando, C., et al. (2023) · Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000006030 · Cited by 54
Self-citationHirvasniemi, J., Gielis, W. P., Arbabı, S., Agricola, R., van Spil, W. E., Arbabi, V., & Weinans, H. (2019) · Osteoarthritis and Cartilage · doi:10.1016/j.joca.2019.02.796 · Cited by 52
Luijken, K., Wynants, L., van Smeden, M., CALSTER, B. V., Steyerberg, E. W., Groenwold, R. H. H., Timmerman, D., Bourne, T., & Ukaegbu, C. I. (2019) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.11.001 · Cited by 53
Self-citationThe Importance of Calibration in Clinical Psychology
Lindhiem, O., Petersen, I., Mentch, L., & Youngstrom, E. (2018) · Assessment (Odessa, Fla.) · doi:10.1177/1073191117752055 · Cited by 53
Piccininni, M., Wechsung, M., van Calster, B., Rohmann, J., Konigorski, S., & van Smeden, M. (2024) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2024.104666 · Cited by 42
Development and evaluation of a multimodal marker of major depressive disorder
Yang, J., Zhang, M., Ahn, H., Zhang, Q., Jin, T. B., Li, I., Nemesure, M. D., Joshi, N., Jiang, H., Miller, J. M., et al. (2018) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.24282 · Cited by 48
Validation and updating of risk models based on multinomial logistic regression
CALSTER, B. V., Hoorde, K. V., Vergouwe, Y., Bobdiwala, S., Condous, G. S., Kirk, E., Bourne, T., & Steyerberg, E. W. (2017) · Diagnostic and Prognostic Research · doi:10.1186/s41512-016-0002-x · Cited by 47
Self-citationLessons and tips for designing a machine learning study using EHR data
Arbet, J., Brokamp, C., Meinzen-Derr, J., Trinkley, K. E., & Spratt, H. M. (2021) · Journal of Clinical and Translational Science · doi:10.1017/cts.2020.513 · Cited by 46
Ramspek, C. L., Teece, L., Snell, K. I. E., Evans, M., Riley, R. D., van Smeden, M., van Geloven, N., & van Diepen, M. (2021) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/dyab256 · Cited by 45
Pencina, M. J., Fine, J. P., & D’Agostino, R. B. (2016) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.7139 · Cited by 44
Self-citationRandom‐effects meta‐analysis of the clinical utility of tests and prediction models
Wynants, L., Riley, R. D., Timmerman, D., & CALSTER, B. V. (2018) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.7653 · Cited by 44
Clinical Prediction Models in Sports Medicine: A Guide for Clinicians and Researchers
Bullock, G. S., Hughes, T., Sergeant, J. C., Callaghan, M. J., Riley, R. D., & Collins, P. G. S. (2021) · Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy · doi:10.2519/jospt.2021.10697 · Cited by 54
Dean, J., Wong, K. H., Gay, H. A., Welsh, L. C., Jones, A.-B., Schick, U., Oh, J. H., Apte, A., Newbold, K. L., Bhide, S. A., et al. (2017) · Clinical and Translational Radiation Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.ctro.2017.11.009 · Cited by 44
Dhiman, P., Ma, J., Andaur Navarro, C. L., Speich, B., Bullock, G., Damen, J. A. A., Hooft, L., Kirtley, S., Riley, R. D., Van Calster, B., et al. (2023) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.03.012 · Cited by 41
Wynants, L., Vergouwe, Y., Huffel, S. V., Timmerman, D., & CALSTER, B. V. (2016) · Statistical Methods in Medical Research · doi:10.1177/0962280216668555 · Cited by 43
Self-citationPiscator, E., Göransson, K. E., Bruchfeld, S., Hammar, U., Gharbi, S. E., Ebell, M. H., Herlitz, J. D., & Djärv, T. (2018) · Resuscitation · doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2018.04.035 · Cited by 41
Sample size calculation to externally validate scoring systems based on logistic regression models
Palazón‐Bru, A., la Rosa, D. M. F.-D., Cortés‐Castell, E., López-Cascales, M. T., & Gil-Guillén, V. F. (2017) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0176726 · Cited by 39
Predictive Model for High-Risk Coronary Artery Disease
Jang, J. J., Bhapkar, M. V., Coles, A., Vemulapalli, S., Fordyce, C. B., Lee, K. L., Udelson, J. E., Hoffmann, U., Tardif, J., Jones, W. S., et al. (2019) · Circulation Cardiovascular Imaging · doi:10.1161/circimaging.118.007940 · Cited by 43
Chee, M. L., Ong, M. E. H., Siddiqui, F. J., Zhang, Z., Lim, S. L., Ho, A. F. W., & Liu, N. (2021) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph18094749 · Cited by 40
Machine learning models for decision support in epilepsy management: A critical review
Smolyansky, E. D., Hakeem, H., Ge, Z., Chen, Z. Z., & Kwan, P. (2021) · Epilepsy & Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.yebeh.2021.108273 · Cited by 42
Ensemble learning for the early prediction of neonatal jaundice with genetic features
Deng, H., Zhou, Y., Wang, L., & Zhang, C. (2021) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/s12911-021-01701-9 · Cited by 40
Adaptive sample size determination for the development of clinical prediction models
Christodoulou, E., van Smeden, M., Edlinger, M., Timmerman, D., Wanitschek, M. M., Steyerberg, E. W., & CALSTER, B. V. (2021) · Diagnostic and Prognostic Research · doi:10.1186/s41512-021-00096-5 · Cited by 39
Self-citationLeeuwenberg, A. M., van Smeden, M., Langendijk, J. A., van der Schaaf, A., Mauer, M. E. L., Moons, K. G. M., Reitsma, J. B., & Schuit, E. (2022) · Diagnostic and Prognostic Research · doi:10.1186/s41512-021-00115-5 · Cited by 39
Forecasting football injuries by combining screening, monitoring and machine learning
Hecksteden, A., Schmartz, G. P., Egyptien, Y., der Fünten, K. A., Keller, A., & Meyer, T. (2022) · Science and Medicine in Football · doi:10.1080/24733938.2022.2095006 · Cited by 39
Bridge, J., Blakey, J., & Bonnett, L. J. (2020) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-020-0913-7 · Cited by 38
Khan, S. S., Greenland, P., Hayman, L. L., Khera, R., Návar, A. M., Pencina, M. J., Reza, N., Shah, S. H., Shanbhag, S. M., Weber, B., et al. (2026) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/cir.0000000000001401 · Cited by 45
Self-citationSemi-supervised learning to improve generalizability of risk prediction models
Chi, S., Li, X., Tian, Y., Li, J., Kong, X., Ding, K., Weng, C., & Li, J. (2019) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103117 · Cited by 40
Viora, E., Piovano, E., Poma, C. B., Cotrino, I., Castiglione, A., Cavallero, C., Sciarrone, A., Bastonero, S., Iskra, L., & Zola, P. (2020) · European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology · doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2020.02.022 · Cited by 38
Liu, F., Sun, X., Zhang, Y., Lin, G., Wang, J., Liang, X., Li, J.-F., Wang, C.-L., Xing, Z.-T., Chhetri, J. K., et al. (2020) · Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000004549 · Cited by 38
Developing and validating clinical prediction models in hepatology – An overview for clinicians
Strandberg, R., Jepsen, P., & Hagström, H. (2024) · Journal of Hepatology · doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2024.03.030 · Cited by 38
Rosen, A. W., Ose, I., Gögenur, M., Andersen, L. P. K., Bojesen, R. D., Vogelsang, R. P., Rose, M. H., Steenfos, P. W., Hansen, L. B., Spuur, H. S., et al. (2025) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-025-03942-x · Cited by 37
Head-to-head comparison of prostate cancer risk calculators predicting biopsy outcome
Azevedo, N. P., Verbeek, J. F. M., Nieboer, D., Bangma, C. H., & Roobol, M. J. (2018) · Translational Andrology and Urology · doi:10.21037/tau.2017.12.21 · Cited by 37
Self-citationPredicting the Risk of Adverse Events in Pregnant Women With Congenital Heart Disease
Chu, R., Chen, W., Song, G., Yao, S., Xie, L., Song, L., Zhang, Y., Chen, L., Zhang, X., Ma, Y., et al. (2020) · Journal of the American Heart Association · doi:10.1161/jaha.120.016371 · Cited by 37
Rahimi, A. K., Canfell, O. J., Chan, W., Sly, B. P., Pole, J. D., Sullivan, C. M., & Shrapnel, S. (2022) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2022.104758 · Cited by 35
Prediction of Childhood Obesity from Nationwide Health Records
Rossman, H., Shilo, S., Barbash‐Hazan, S., Artzi, N. S., Hadar, E., Balicer, R. D., Feldman, B., Wiznitzer, A., & Segal, E. (2021) · The Journal of Pediatrics · doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2021.02.010 · Cited by 36
Machine Learning for Suicide Research–Can It Improve Risk Factor Identification?
Fazel, S., & O’Reilly, L. M. (2019) · JAMA Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.2896 · Cited by 35
Why do probabilistic clinical models fail to transport between sites
Lasko, T. A., Strobl, E. V., & Stead, W. W. (2024) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-024-01037-4 · Cited by 41
Ladin, K., Cuddeback, J. K., Duru, O. K., Goel, S., Harvey, W., Park, J. G., Paulus, J. K., Sackey, J., Sharp, R. R., Steyerberg, E. W., et al. (2024) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-024-01245-y · Cited by 36
Self-citationJang, S.-K., Chang, J. Y., Lee, J. S., Lee, E., Kim, Y., Han, J. H., Chang, D., Cho, H., Cha, J., Yu, K., et al. (2020) · Journal of Stroke · doi:10.5853/jos.2020.02537 · Cited by 34
Model-Based ROC Curve: Examining the Effect of Case Mix and Model Calibration on the ROC Plot
Sadatsafavi, M., Saha‐Chaudhuri, P., & Petkau, J. (2021) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x211050909 · Cited by 34
Chichareon, P., Modolo, R., Klaveren, D. V., Takahashi, K., Kogame, N., Chang, C., Katagiri, Y., Tomaniak, M., Asano, T., Spitzer, E., et al. (2019) · International Journal of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2019.02.043 · Cited by 34
Open questions and research gaps for monitoring and updating AI-enabled tools in clinical settings
Davis, S. E., Walsh, C. G., & Matheny, M. E. (2022) · Frontiers in Digital Health · doi:10.3389/fdgth.2022.958284 · Cited by 33
Halicka, M., Wilby, M. J., Duarte, R. V., & Brown, C. A. (2023) · BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders · doi:10.1186/s12891-023-06446-2 · Cited by 40
A Prediction Model for Pediatric Radiographic Pneumonia
Ramgopal, S., Ambroggio, L., Lorenz, D. J., Shah, S. S., Ruddy, R. M., & Florin, T. A. (2021) · PEDIATRICS · doi:10.1542/peds.2021-051405 · Cited by 33
An evaluation of sample size requirements for developing risk prediction models with binary outcomes
Pavlou, M., Ambler, G., Chen, Q., Seaman, S. R., White, I. R., & Omar, R. (2024) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-024-02268-5 · Cited by 32
Christodoulou, E., Bobdiwala, S., Kyriacou, C., Farren, J. A., Mitchell‐Jones, N., Ayim, F., Chohan, B., Abughazza, O., Guruwadahyarhalli, B., Al‐Memar, M., et al. (2020) · BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1111/1471-0528.16497 · Cited by 32
Nissen, S. K., Candel, B. G. J., Nickel, C. H., de Jonge, E., Ryg, J., Bogh, S. B., de Groot, B., & Brabrand, M. (2021) · Annals of Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2021.09.434 · Cited by 32
Tran, D., Nguyen, H., Pham, V.-D., Nguyen, T. N. P., Luu, H. N., Phan, L. M., DeStefano, C. B., Yeung, S. J., & Nguyen, T. (2025) · Briefings in Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bib/bbaf150 · Cited by 37
Pihl, K., Ensor, J., Peat, G., Englund, M., Lohmander, S. L., Jørgensen, U., Nissen, N., Fristed, J. V., & Thorlund, J. B. (2019) · British Journal of Sports Medicine · doi:10.1136/bjsports-2018-100321 · Cited by 31
A Clinical Prediction Model for Unsuccessful Pulmonary Tuberculosis Treatment Outcomes
Peetluk, L. S., Rebeiro, P. F., Ridolfi, F. M., Andrade, B. B., Cordeiro‐Santos, M., Kritski, A. L., Durovni, B., Calvacante, S., Figueiredo, M. C., Haas, D. W., et al. (2021) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1093/cid/ciab598 · Cited by 31
Utilizing machine learning to improve clinical trial design for acute respiratory distress syndrome
Schwager, E., Jansson, K., Rahman, M. A., Schiffer, S., Chang, Y., Boverman, G., Gross, B. D., Xu-Wilson, M., Boehme, P., Truebel, H., et al. (2021) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-021-00505-5 · Cited by 31
Revisiting performance metrics for prediction with rare outcomes
Adhikari, S., Normand, S. T., Bloom, J. P., Shahian, D. M., & Rose, S. (2021) · Statistical Methods in Medical Research · doi:10.1177/09622802211038754 · Cited by 31
Shen, Y.-N., Yu, M.-X., Gao, Q., Li, Y.-Y., Huang, J.-J., Sun, C.-M., Qiao, N., Zhang, H., Wang, H., Lü, Q., et al. (2017) · Medicine · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000007610 · Cited by 29
Li, Y., Cao, Y. Y., Wang, M., Wang, L., Wu, Y., Fang, Y., Zhao, Y., Fan, Y., Liu, X., Liang, H., et al. (2024) · Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control · doi:10.1186/s13756-024-01428-y · Cited by 33
Assessment of Somatosensory Function and Self-harm in Adolescents
Cummins, T. M., English, O., Minnis, H., Stahl, D. R., O’Connor, R. C., Bannister, K., McMahon, S. B., & Ougrin, D. (2021) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.16853 · Cited by 32
Polygenic risk scores: the future of cancer risk prediction, screening, and precision prevention
Wang, Y., Zhu, M., Ma, H., & Shen, H. (2021) · Medical Review · doi:10.1515/mr-2021-0025 · Cited by 32
Developing algorithms to predict adult onset internalizing disorders: An ensemble learning approach
Rosellini, A. J., Liu, S., Anderson, G. N., Sbi, S., Tung, E. S., & Knyazhanskaya, E. E. (2019) · Journal of Psychiatric Research · doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2019.12.006 · Cited by 30
Klein, N. S., Holtman, G. A., Bockting, C. L. H., Heymans, M. W., & Burger, H. (2018) · Journal of Psychiatric Research · doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2018.06.006 · Cited by 29
de Hond, A., van Buchem, M. M., Fanconi, C., Roy, M., Blayney, D. W., Kant, I. M. J., Steyerberg, E. W., & Hernandez‐Boussard, T. (2024) · JMIR Medical Informatics · doi:10.2196/51925 · Cited by 31
Self-citationRisk calculators for the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review
Denijs, F., van Harten, M. J., Meenderink, J. J. L., Leenen, R. C. A., Remmers, S., Venderbos, L. D. F., van den Bergh, R. C. N., Beyer, K., & Roobol, M. J. (2024) · Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases · doi:10.1038/s41391-024-00852-w · Cited by 35
Liou, L., Scott, E. R., Parchure, P., Ouyang, Y., Egorova, N., Freeman, R., Hofer, I. S., Nadkarni, G. N., Timsina, P., Kia, A., et al. (2024) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-024-01141-5 · Cited by 30
Xie, G., Wang, R., Shang, L., Qi, C., Yang, L., Huang, L., Yang, W., & Chung, M. C. (2020) · BMC Cancer · doi:10.1186/s12885-020-07349-4 · Cited by 29
Predicting exclusive breastfeeding in maternity wards using machine learning techniques
Oliver‐Roig, A., Rico-Juan, J. R., Richart‐Martínez, M., & Cabrero‐García, J. (2022) · Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine · doi:10.1016/j.cmpb.2022.106837 · Cited by 32
Taylor, M., Szafron, B., Martin, G. P., Abah, U. D., Smith, M. O., Shackcloth, M. J., Granato, F., Shah, R. D., Grant, S. W., (NWTSC), T. N. W. T. S. C., et al. (2020) · European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery · doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezaa422 · Cited by 29
Zhuo, X.-Y., Lei, S.-H., Sun, L., Bai, Y., Wu, J., Zheng, Y.-J., Liu, K., Liu, W.-F., & Zhao, B.-C. (2024) · British Journal of Anaesthesia · doi:10.1016/j.bja.2024.02.018 · Cited by 28
Foschi, F., Conti, F., Domenicali, M., Giacomoni, P., Borghi, A., Bevilacqua, V., Napoli, L., Berardinelli, D., Altini, M., Cucchetti, A., et al. (2021) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm10030520 · Cited by 28
Utilizing dynamic treatment information for MACE prediction of acute coronary syndrome
Duan, H., Sun, Z., Dong, W., & Huang, Z. (2019) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/s12911-018-0730-7 · Cited by 28
Predicting 30-Day Hospital Readmission Risk in a National Cohort of Patients with Cirrhosis
Koola, J., Ho, S. B., Cao, A., Chen, G., Perkins, A. M., Davis, S. E., & Matheny, M. E. (2019) · Digestive Diseases and Sciences · doi:10.1007/s10620-019-05826-w · Cited by 31
Feng, Y., Wang, Y., Xie, Y., Wu, S., Li, Y., & Liu, Y. (2021) · BMC Cancer · doi:10.1186/s12885-021-08209-5 · Cited by 28
Foroutan, F., Guyatt, G. H., Trivella, M., Kreuzberger, N., Skoetz, N., Riley, R. D., Roshanov, P. S., Alba, A. C., Sekercioglu, N., Canelo‐Aybar, C., et al. (2021) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.11.024 · Cited by 29
Dana, J., Lefebvre, T. L., Savadjiev, P., Bodard, S., Gauvin, S., Bhatnagar, S., Forghani, R., Hélénon, O., & Reinhold, C. (2022) · European Radiology · doi:10.1007/s00330-021-08449-w · Cited by 27
Tiruneh, S. A., Rolnik, D. L., Teede, H. J., & Enticott, J. (2024) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2024.105645 · Cited by 31
Bhattacharyay, S., Milosevic, I., Wilson, L., Menon, D. K., Stevens, R. D., Steyerberg, E. W., Nelson, D. W., & Ercole, A. (2022) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0270973 · Cited by 26
Self-citationExternal validation of existing dementia prediction models on observational health data
John, L. H., Kors, J. A., Fridgeirsson, E. A., Reps, J., & Rijnbeek, P. R. (2022) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-022-01793-5 · Cited by 28
de Vos‐Kerkhof, E., Gómez, B., Milcent, K., Steyerberg, E. W., Nijman, R., Smit, F. J., Mintegi, S., Moll, H. A., Gajdos, V., & Oostenbrink, R. (2018) · Archives of Disease in Childhood · doi:10.1136/archdischild-2017-314011 · Cited by 25
Self-citationZhang, L., Wang, Y., Niu, M., Wang, C., & Wang, Z. (2021) · IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics · doi:10.1109/jbhi.2021.3077114 · Cited by 26
Keogh, R. H., Cosgriff, R., Andrinopoulou, E., Brownlee, K. G., Carr, S. B., Diaz‐Ordaz, K., Granger, E. K., Jewell, N. P., Lewin, A., Leyrat, C., et al. (2021) · Thorax · doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2020-216265 · Cited by 25
Decision support systems for incurable non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review
Révész, D., Engelhardt, E. G., Tamminga, J. J., Schramel, F. M. N. H., Onwuteaka-Philipsen, B. D., van de Garde, E. M. W., Steyerberg, E. W., Jansma, E. P., de Vet, H. C. W., & Coupé, V. M. H. (2017) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/s12911-017-0542-1 · Cited by 25
Self-citationWessler, B. S., Ruthazer, R., Udelson, J. E., Gheorghiade, M., Zannad, F. M., Maggioni, A. P., Konstam, M. A., & Kent, D. M. (2017) · Journal of the American Heart Association · doi:10.1161/jaha.117.006121 · Cited by 25
König, S., Pellissier, V., Hohenstein, S., Bernal, A., Ueberham, L., Meier‐Hellmann, A., Kuhlen, R., Hindricks, G., & Bollmann, A. (2021) · ESC Heart Failure · doi:10.1002/ehf2.13398 · Cited by 25
Bertsimas, D., Margonis, G. A., Tang, S., Koulouras, A. G., Antonescu, C. R., Brennan, M. F., Martín‐Broto, J., Rutkowski, P. L., Stasinos, G., Wang, J., et al. (2023) · EClinicalMedicine · doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102200 · Cited by 24
Lane, D. J., Wunsch, H., Saskin, R., Cheskes, S., Lin, S., Morrison, L. J., & Scales, D. C. (2019) · Prehospital Emergency Care · doi:10.1080/10903127.2019.1632998 · Cited by 24
Decision Trees for Predicting Mortality in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation
Mamprin, M., Zelis, J. M., Tonino, P. A. L., Zinger, S., & de With, P. H. N. (2021) · Bioengineering · doi:10.3390/bioengineering8020022 · Cited by 23
Risk Prediction After a Brief Resolved Unexplained Event
Nama, N., Hall, M., Neuman, M. I., Sullivan, E. M., Bochner, R. E., Laroche, A. D., Hadvani, T., Jain, S., Katsogridakis, Y. L., Kim, E., et al. (2022) · Hospital Pediatrics · doi:10.1542/hpeds.2022-006637 · Cited by 24
Dean, J., Wong, K. H., Gay, H. A., Welsh, L. C., Jones, A.-B., Schick, U., Oh, J. H., Apte, A., Newbold, K. L., Bhide, S. A., et al. (2016) · International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics · doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.08.013 · Cited by 24
Drost, F. H., Nieboer, D., Morgan, T. M., Carroll, P. R., Roobol, M. J., Trock, B. J., Ehdaie, B., Carroll, P. R., Filson, C. P., Kim, J., et al. (2019) · European Urology · doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2019.07.041 · Cited by 24
Self-citationDavis, S. E., Greevy, R. A., Lasko, T. A., Walsh, C. G., & Matheny, M. E. (2019) · PubMed Central · Cited by 24
A systematic review of risk prediction models for perioperative mortality after thoracic surgery
Taylor, M., Hashmi, S. F., Martin, G. P., Shackcloth, M. J., Shah, R. D., Booton, R., & Grant, S. W. (2020) · Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery · doi:10.1093/icvts/ivaa273 · Cited by 24
Assessing the clinical impact of risk models for opting out of treatment
Kerr, K. F., Brown, M. D., Marsh, T. L., & Janes, H. (2019) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x18819479 · Cited by 23
Brouwer, E. D., Becker, T., Werthen‐Brabants, L., Dewulf, P., Iliadis, D., Dekeyser, C., Laureys, G., Wijmeersch, B. V., Popescu, V., Dhaene, T., et al. (2024) · PLOS Digital Health · doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000533 · Cited by 27
Evaluation and Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Medical Devices for Clinical Decision Support
Weissman, G. E. (2025) · Annual Review of Biomedical Data Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-biodatasci-103123-095824 · Cited by 31
Bongers, M. E. R., Karhade, A. V., Setola, E., Gambarotti, M., Groot, O. Q., Erdoğan, K. E., Picci, P., Donati, D. M., Schwab, J. H., & Palmerini, E. (2020) · Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research · doi:10.1097/corr.0000000000001305 · Cited by 23
Recalibration Methods for Improved Clinical Utility of Risk Scores
Mishra, A., McClelland, R. L., Inoue, L. Y. T., & Kerr, K. F. (2021) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x211044697 · Cited by 23
Egashira, R., Sato, T., Miyake, A., Takeuchi, M., Nakano, M., Saito, H., Moriguchi, M., Tonari, S., & Hagihara, K. (2022) · Gene · doi:10.1016/j.gene.2022.146775 · Cited by 23
Osimo, E. F., Perry, B. I., Mallikarjun, P. K., Pritchard, M., Lewis, J., Katunda, A., Murray, G. K., Pérez, J., Jones, P. B., Cardinal, R. N., et al. (2023) · Nature Mental Health · doi:10.1038/s44220-022-00001-z · Cited by 22
Metadata
- Authors
- Van Calster, B., Nieboer, D., Vergouwe, Y., De Cock, B., Pencina, M. J., & Steyerberg, E. W.
- Affiliations
- Erasmus MC (NL)
- Duke University (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-06
- Volume
- 74
- Pages
- 167-176
- ISSN
- 0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2225109326
- Cited by
- 910
- References
- 42
- Citations by year
- 2026: 192 · 2025: 99 · 2024: 118 · 2023: 93 · 2022: 125 · 2021: 91 · 2020: 58 · 2019: 49 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 19
- FWCI
- 44.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- lirias.kuleuven.be
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Lirias (KU Leuven) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (G049312N)
- KU Leuven (C24/15/037)
- Vlaamse regering (G049312N, C24/15/037)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
- Keywords
- risk model calibration, external validation, decision support, overfitting, simulation study
- MeSH terms
- Calibration, Computer Simulation, Decision Support Techniques, Humans, Risk, Reproducibility of Results, Models, Statistical, Bias, Risk Assessment
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
