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 301–400 of 918
Wang, C., Xu, Y., Lin, Y., Zhou, Y., Mao, F., Zhang, X., Shen, S., Zhang, Y., & Sun, Q. (2022) · The Breast · doi:10.1016/j.breast.2022.03.007 · Cited by 12
Gehringer, C. K., Martin, G. P., Hyrich, K. L., Verstappen, S. M. M., & Sergeant, J. C. (2022) · Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism · doi:10.1016/j.semarthrit.2022.152076 · Cited by 13
Value-of-Information Analysis for External Validation of Risk Prediction Models
Sadatsafavi, M., Lee, T. Y., Wynants, L., Vickers, A. J., & Gustafson, P. (2023) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x231178317 · Cited by 12
Han, J. X., See, A. A. Q., & King, N. K. K. (2017) · World Neurosurgery · doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2017.10.039 · Cited by 12
Novaes, M. T., de Carvalho, O. L. F., Ferreira, P. H. G., Tiraboschi, T. L. N., Silva, C. S., Contreras, J. C. Z., Gomes, C. M., Miranda, E., Júnior, O. A. D. C., & de Bessa, J. (2021) · Informatics in Medicine Unlocked · doi:10.1016/j.imu.2021.100538 · Cited by 15
Calibrating variant-scoring methods for clinical decision making
Benevenuta, S., Capriotti, E., & Fariselli, P. (2021) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa943 · Cited by 11
Fanconi, C., de Hond, A., Peterson, D. J., Capodici, A., & Hernandez‐Boussard, T. (2023) · EBioMedicine · doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2023.104632 · Cited by 11
Dibiasi, C., Agibetov, A., Kapral, L., Zeiner, S., & Kimberger, O. (2023) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm12134434 · Cited by 12
Meng, Z. W., Ruan, Y., Fisher, S., Bishay, K., Chau, M., Howarth, M., Cartwright, S., Chen, Y., Dixon, E., Heitman, S. J., et al. (2024) · DEN Open · doi:10.1002/deo2.355 · Cited by 11
Yu, Y., Chen, Z. Z., Yang, Y., Zhang, J., & Wang, Y. (2024) · Epilepsy Research · doi:10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2024.107397 · Cited by 11
Zhang, X., Liu, B., Huang, J., Zhang, Y. L., Xu, N., Gale, R. P., Li, W., Liu, X., Zhu, H., Pan, L., et al. (2024) · Blood · doi:10.1182/blood.2024024761 · Cited by 15
de Reus, D. C., Kuijten, R. H., Saha, P., Lastoria, D. A. A., Warr-Esser, A., Taylor, C. F. C., Groot, O. Q., Lui, D. F., Verlaan, J., & Tobert, D. G. (2025) · The Spine Journal · doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2025.03.018 · Cited by 11
Machine-learning driven strategies for adapting immunotherapy in metastatic NSCLC
Saad, M. B., Al-Tashi, Q., Hong, L., Verma, V., Li, W., Boiarsky, D., Li, S., Petranović, M., Wu, C. C., Carter, B. W., et al. (2025) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-025-61823-w · Cited by 14
Uzan, C., Mazouni, C., Rossoni, C., Korvin, B. D., de Lara, C. T., Cohen, M., Chabbert‐Buffet, N., Zilberman, S., Boussion, V., Vincent‐Salomon, A., et al. (2020) · Annals of Surgical Oncology · doi:10.1245/s10434-020-09107-z · Cited by 11
Bedogni, G., Tamini, S., Caroli, D., Cicolini, S., Domenicali, M., & Sartório, A. (2021) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm10071470 · Cited by 11
Stojadinović, M., Miličević, B., & Јаnkovic, S. (2021) · Computers in Biology and Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2021.104903 · Cited by 9
Moser, A., Reinikainen, M., Jakob, S. M., Selander, T. A., Pettilä, V., Kiiski, O., Varpula, T., Raj, R., & Takala, J. A. (2021) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.11.028 · Cited by 11
Pienaar, M. A., Sempa, J. B., Luwes, N. J., & Solomon, L. J. (2022) · Frontiers in Pediatrics · doi:10.3389/fped.2022.797080 · Cited by 13
Li, Y., Sijtsema, N. M., de Vette, S. P. M., Steenbakkers, R. J. H. M., Zhang, F., Noordzij, W., den Bosch, L. V., Langendijk, J. A., & van Dijk, L. V. (2023) · Radiotherapy and Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2022.109458 · Cited by 11
Pedersen, E. S. L., Spycher, B. D., de Jong, C. C. M., Halbeisen, F., Ramette, A., Gaillard, E. A., Granell, R., Henderson, A. J., & Kuehni, C. E. (2018) · The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology In Practice · doi:10.1016/j.jaip.2018.09.032 · Cited by 11
Wingbermühle, R. W., Chiarotto, A., van Trijffel, E., Koes, B. W., Verhagen, A. P., & Heymans, M. W. (2021) · Physiotherapy · doi:10.1016/j.physio.2021.05.011 · Cited by 11
Modern Learning from Big Data in Critical Care: Primum Non Nocere
Gravesteijn, B. Y., Steyerberg, E. W., & Lingsma, H. F. (2022) · Neurocritical Care · doi:10.1007/s12028-022-01510-6 · Cited by 12
Self-citationExternal validation of the parental attitude about childhood vaccination scale
Ghazy, R. M., Elkhadry, S. W., Abdel‐Rahman, S., Taha, S. H. N., Youssef, N. F. A., Elshabrawy, A., Ibrahim, S. A., Awaidy, S. T. A., AL-Ahdal, T. M. A., Padhi, B. K., et al. (2023) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2023.1146792 · Cited by 11
Judicial gatekeeping on scientific validity with risk assessment tools
Hamilton, M. (2020) · Behavioral Sciences & the Law · doi:10.1002/bsl.2456 · Cited by 11
Evaluating the Performance and Clinical Utility of AI-driven Diagnostic Tools in Radiology
Mercaldo, S., Hillis, J. M., & Blume, J. D. (2025) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.243935 · Cited by 12
Malaria prevalence and use of control measures in an area with persistent transmission in Senegal
Tairou, F., Gaye, I., Herrera, S., Nawaz, S., Sarr, L., Cissé, B., Faye, B. T., & Tine, R. C. K. (2024) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0303794 · Cited by 10
Cox, E. G. M., Meijs, D. A. M., Wynants, L., Sels, J.-W. E. M., Koeze, J., Keus, F., Dongen, B. B.-V., van der Horst, I. C. C., & van der Horst, I. C. C. (2024) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111605 · Cited by 11
Moro, F., Momi, M., Ledger, A., Barreñada, L., Ceusters, J., Sturla, D., Mor, E., Fornari, L., Mascilini, F., Ciccarone, F., et al. (2025) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2025.07.017 · Cited by 10
CALSTER, B. V., van Smeden, M., van Amsterdam, W. A. C., Coemans, M., Wynants, L., & Steyerberg, E. W. (2025) · Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application · doi:10.1146/annurev-statistics-042324-123749 · Cited by 14
Self-citationDevelopment of prediction models for successful external cephalic version and delivery outcome
Dong, T., Chen, X., Zhao, B., Jiang, Y., Chen, Y., Lv, M., Pu, Y., Chen, G., Xu, J., & Luo, Q. (2021) · Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics · doi:10.1007/s00404-021-06115-6 · Cited by 10
Kalendralis, P., Sloep, M., George, N. M., Snel, J., Veugen, J., Hoebers, F. J. P., Wesseling, F. W. R., Unipan, M., Veening, M., Langendijk, J. A., et al. (2022) · Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.phro.2022.09.005 · Cited by 10
Risk prediction models for head and neck cancer: A rapid review
Smith, C. D. L., McMahon, A. D., Ross, A. J., Inman, G. J., & Conway, D. I. (2022) · Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology · doi:10.1002/lio2.982 · Cited by 10
Fistouris, J., Bergh, C., & Strandell, A. (2022) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058454 · Cited by 10
Rentroia‐Pacheco, B., Bellomo, D., Lakeman, I. M. M., Wakkee, M., Hollestein, L. M., & Klaveren, D. V. (2024) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-024-02213-6 · Cited by 10
Validation of a prediction model for long-term outcome of aphasia after stroke
Nouwens, F., Visch-Brink, E. G., Hachioui, H. E., Lingsma, H. F., van de Sandt-Koenderman, M. W. M. E., Dippel, D. W. J., Koudstaal, P. J., & de Lau, L. M. L. (2018) · BMC Neurology · doi:10.1186/s12883-018-1174-5 · Cited by 13
A systematic review of predictive models for recurrence and mortality in patients with tongue cancer
Palazón‐Bru, A., Mares‐García, E., López‐Bru, D., Mares‐Arambul, E., Gil-Guillén, V. F., & Carbonell‐Torregrosa, M. Á. (2019) · European Journal of Cancer Care · doi:10.1111/ecc.13157 · Cited by 10
McCarthy, C., Bonnett, L. J., Marcus, M. W., & Field, J. K. (2020) · International Journal of Oncology · doi:10.3892/ijo.2020.5123 · Cited by 10
Risk Prediction for Acute Kidney Injury in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19
McAdams, M. C., Xu, P., Saleh, S. N., Li, M., Ostrosky-Frid, M., Gregg, L. P., Willett, D. L., Velasco, F. T., Lehmann, C. U., & Hedayati, S. S. (2022) · Kidney Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.xkme.2022.100463 · Cited by 10
A one-year risk score to predict all-cause mortality in hypertensive inpatients
Martínez‐Díaz, A. M., Palazón‐Bru, A., la Rosa, D. M. F.-D., Ramírez-Prado, D., Navarro-Juan, M., Pérez-Ramírez, N., & Gil-Guillén, V. F. (2018) · European Journal of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.ejim.2018.07.010 · Cited by 10
Uninformative and misleading comparison of EuroSCORE and EuroSCORE II
Collins, P. G. S., & Manach, Y. L. (2016) · European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery · doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezw262 · Cited by 10
Ishøi, L., Thorborg, K., Kallemose, T., Kemp, J. L., Reiman, M. P., Nielsen, M. F., & Hölmich, P. (2023) · British Journal of Sports Medicine · doi:10.1136/bjsports-2022-105534 · Cited by 9
Gehringer, C. K., Martin, G. P., Hyrich, K. L., Verstappen, S. M. M., Sexton, J., Kristianslund, E. K., Provan, S. A., Kvien, T. K., & Sergeant, J. C. (2023) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.111239 · Cited by 9
Rees, C. A., Kisenge, R. R., Godfrey, E. K., Ideh, R. C., Kamara, J., Coleman-Nekar, Y.-J. G., Samma, A., Manji, H. K., Sudfeld, C. R., Westbrook, A. L., et al. (2024) · The Journal of Pediatrics · doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2024.114147 · Cited by 9
Kuo, C.-Y., Su, E. C., Yeh, H., Yeh, J., Chiu, H., & Chung, C. (2024) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e41084 · Cited by 9
Lim, C. Y., Seo, Y., Sohn, B., Seong, M., Kim, S. T., Hong, S., Youn, J., & Kim, E. Y. (2024) · American Journal of Neuroradiology · doi:10.3174/ajnr.a8623 · Cited by 9
Arendse, K. D., Walter, F. M., Abel, G., Rous, B., Hamilton, W. T., Crosbie, E. J., & Funston, G. (2025) · British Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1038/s41416-025-03165-4 · Cited by 9
Predicting High-Value Care Outcomes After Surgery for Skull Base Meningiomas
Jimenez, A. E., Khalafallah, A. M., Lam, S., Horowitz, M. A., Azmeh, O., Rakovec, M., Patel, P., Porras, J. L., & Mukherjee, D. R. (2021) · World Neurosurgery · doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2021.02.007 · Cited by 9
Sharabiani, M., Clementel, E., Andratschke, N. H., Collette, L., Fortpied, C., Grégoire, V., Overgaard, J., Willmann, J., & Hurkmans, C. (2021) · Radiotherapy and Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2021.04.006 · Cited by 9
Validation of the 30-Year Framingham Risk Score in a German Population-Based Cohort
Rospleszcz, S., Starnecker, F., Linkohr, B., von Scheidt, M., Gieger, C., Schunkert, H., & Peters, A. (2022) · Diagnostics · doi:10.3390/diagnostics12040965 · Cited by 9
Fanconi, C., van Buchem, M. M., & Hernandez‐Boussard, T. (2023) · PubMed Central · Cited by 9
Sabbagh, A., Derya Tilki, A., Feng, J., Huland, H., Graefen, M., Wiegel, T., Böhmer, D., Hong, J. C., Valdés, G., Cowan, J. E., et al. (2023) · European Urology Focus · doi:10.1016/j.euf.2023.07.004 · Cited by 9
Guo, Y., Zhang, Y., Cen, K., Dai, Y., Mai, Y., & Hong, K. M. (2023) · Frontiers in Immunology · doi:10.3389/fimmu.2023.1125203 · Cited by 8
Matsuoka, M., Yamaguchi, J., & Kinoshita, K. (2023) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms241813857 · Cited by 10
Calibration plots for multistate risk prediction models
Pate, A., Sperrin, M., Riley, R. D., Peek, N. B., van Staa, T. P., Sergeant, J. C., Mamas, M. A., Lip, G. Y. H., O’Flaherty, M., Barrowman, M., et al. (2024) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.10094 · Cited by 9
Zhang, X., Gale, R. P., Li, Z., Zhang, M., Huang, X., & Jiang, Q. (2022) · Leukemia · doi:10.1038/s41375-022-01616-y · Cited by 10
Grande, G., Vetrano, D. L., Marconi, E., Bianchini, E., Cricelli, I., Lovato, V., Guglielmini, L., Taddeo, D., Cappa, S. F., Cricelli, C. A., et al. (2022) · Neurological Sciences · doi:10.1007/s10072-022-06258-7 · Cited by 9
Hopkins, A. M., Nguyen, A. M., Karapetis, C. S., Rowland, A., & Sorich, M. J. (2018) · Cancers · doi:10.3390/cancers10100384 · Cited by 9
Villar, J., González-Martín, J. M., Fernández, C., Soler, J. A., Ambrós, A., Pita-García, L., Fernández, L., Ferrando, C., Arocas, B., González-Vaquero, M., et al. (2024) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm13061811 · Cited by 8
Self-citationRijk, M. H., Platteel, T. N., van den Berg, T. M. C., Geersing, G., Little, P. S., Rutten, F. H., van Smeden, M., & Venekamp, R. P. (2024) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2023-075475 · Cited by 8
Bhattacharyay, S., van Leeuwen, F. D., Beqiri, E., Åkerlund, C. A. I., Wilson, L., Steyerberg, E. W., Nelson, D., Maas, A. I. R., Menon, D. K., Ercole, A., et al. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-83862-x · Cited by 8
Self-citationExternal Validation of a Predictive Model for Thyroid Cancer Risk with Decision Curve Analysis
Alba, J. J. F., Carral, F., Ortega, C. A., Santotoribio, J. D., Lara, M. C., & Macías, C. G. (2025) · Diagnostics · doi:10.3390/diagnostics15060686 · Cited by 8
Kalaycıoğlu, O., Pavlou, M., Akhanlı, S. E., de Belder, M., Ambler, G., & Omar, R. (2025) · Statistical Methods in Medical Research · doi:10.1177/09622802251338983 · Cited by 10
Veerman, H., Heymans, M. W., & van der Poel, H. G. (2022) · European Urology Open Science · doi:10.1016/j.euros.2021.12.010 · Cited by 8
Luijken, K., Song, J. T., & Groenwold, R. H. H. (2022) · Diagnostic and Prognostic Research · doi:10.1186/s41512-022-00121-1 · Cited by 8
A Diagnostic Prediction Model to Distinguish Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children
Clark, M., Rankin, D. A., Peetluk, L. S., Gotte, A., Herndon, A. C., McEachern, W., Smith, A. H., Clark, D. E., Hardison, E. H., Esbenshade, A. J., et al. (2022) · ACR Open Rheumatology · doi:10.1002/acr2.11509 · Cited by 8
Buick, J. E., Austin, P. C., Cheskes, S., Ko, D. T., & Atzema, C. L. (2023) · Academic Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1111/acem.14756 · Cited by 9
Prediction Models for Successful External Cephalic Version: An Updated Systematic Review
Yerrabelli, R. S., Lee, C., Palsgaard, P. K., Lauinger, A. R., Abdelsalam, O., & Jennings, V. (2023) · American Journal of Perinatology · doi:10.1055/a-2211-4806 · Cited by 8
Pitt, T. M., Hetherington, E., Adhikari, K., Premji, S., Racine, N. M., Tough, S., & McDonald, S. (2023) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-023-02121-1 · Cited by 8
Strobl, R., Misailovski, M., Blaschke, S., Berens, M., Beste, A., Krone, M., Eisenmann, M., Ebert, S., HOEHN, A., Mees, J., et al. (2024) · Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology · doi:10.1017/ice.2024.3 · Cited by 8
Incremental Value of C-Reactive Protein to the MEESSI Acute Heart Failure Risk Score
Wussler, D. N., Belkin, M., Shrestha, S., Wernicke, H., Papachristou, A., Nowak, A., Aliyeva, F., Mork, C., Strebel, I., Huré, G., et al. (2024) · European Journal of Heart Failure · doi:10.1002/ejhf.3349 · Cited by 8
Nama, N., Shen, Y., Bone, J. N., Lee, Z., Picco, K., Jin, F., Foulds, J. L., Gagnon, J. A., Novak, C., Parisien, B., et al. (2024) · Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine · doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2024.4399 · Cited by 8
Li, H., Jin, X., Fan, S., Wang, D., Wu, C., Pan, Z., Li, Y., An, Y., Wang, G., Dai, J., et al. (2019) · European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery · doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezz038 · Cited by 8
Clift, A. K., Hippisley‐Cox, J., Dodwell, D. J., Lord, S., Brady, M., Petrou, S., & Collins, P. G. S. (2022) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050828 · Cited by 8
Wirth, A., Götschi, A., Held, U., Sendoel, A., Stüssi‐Helbling, M., & Huber, L. C. (2022) · Diagnostics · doi:10.3390/diagnostics12051129 · Cited by 8
Kwon, B. C., Kartoun, U., Khurshid, S. S., Yurochkin, M., Maity, S., Brockman, D., Khera, A. V., Ellinor, P. T., Lubitz, S. A., & Ng, K. (2022) · Visualization · doi:10.1109/vis54862.2022.00019 · Cited by 8
Zhang, Q., Niu, S., Li, Y., Zhu, B., Shi, K., Zhang, X., Zhang, Y., Bi, Y., Mu, Y., & Wang, X. (2023) · Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fcimb.2023.1062172 · Cited by 8
Vos, L. M., Oosterheert, J. J., Hoepelman, A. I. M., Bont, L., Coenjaerts, F. E. J., & Naaktgeboren, C. A. (2019) · Journal of Medical Virology · doi:10.1002/jmv.25568 · Cited by 8
Veen, K. M., de Angst, I. B., Mokhles, M. M., Westgeest, H. M., Kuppen, M. C. P., Groot, C. A. U., Gerritsen, W. R., Kil, P. J. M., & Takkenberg, J. J. M. (2020) · Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1007/s00432-020-03286-8 · Cited by 8
Štiglic, G., Wang, F., Sheikh, A., & Cilar, L. (2021) · Primary care diabetes · doi:10.1016/j.pcd.2021.04.008 · Cited by 14
Xiao, X., Qing, L., Li, Z., Ye, F., Dong, Y., Mi, J., & Tian, J. (2024) · Discover Oncology · doi:10.1007/s12672-024-00983-5 · Cited by 7
Predicting periprosthetic joint infection: external validation of preoperative prediction models
Yoon, S. I., Jutte, P. C., Soriano, À., de Sousa, R. J. G., Zijlstra, W. P., & Wouthuyzen‐Bakker, M. (2024) · Journal of Bone and Joint Infection · doi:10.5194/jbji-9-231-2024 · Cited by 7
Combining Missing Data Imputation and Internal Validation in Clinical Risk Prediction Models
Mi, J., Tendulkar, R. D., Sittenfeld, S. M. C., Patil, S., & Zabor, E. C. (2025) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.70203 · Cited by 7
van den Brand, C. L., Foks, K. A., Lingsma, H. F., van der Naalt, J., Jacobs, B., de Jong, E., den Boogert, H. F., Sir, Ö., Patka, P., Polinder, S., et al. (2022) · Injury · doi:10.1016/j.injury.2022.07.001 · Cited by 7
Self-citationPommerich, U. M., Stubbs, P. W., Eggertsen, P. P., Fabricius, J., & Nielsen, J. F. (2023) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.02.009 · Cited by 7
Diguisto, C., Morgan, A. S., Foix-L'Hélias, L., Pierrat, V., Ancel, P., Cohen, J. F., & Goffinet, F. (2023) · BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1111/1471-0528.17633 · Cited by 7
Transportability of bacterial infection prediction models for critically ill patients
Eickelberg, G., Sanchez-Pinto, L. N., Kline, A. S., & Luo, Y. (2023) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1093/jamia/ocad174 · Cited by 8
Held, U., Forzy, T., Signorell, A., Deforth, M., Burgstaller, J., & Wertli, M. (2023) · Pain · doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000003023 · Cited by 6
Zeng, S., Yang, P., Xiao, S., & Liu, L. (2024) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-57609-7 · Cited by 7
Ingwiller, M., Keller, N., Krummel, T., Prinz, É., Steinmetz, L., Hannedouche, T. P., & Florens, N. (2024) · Clinical Kidney Journal · doi:10.1093/ckj/sfae220 · Cited by 6
Hoebers, F. J. P., Wee, L., Likitlersuang, J., Mak, R. H., Bitterman, D. S., Huang, Y., Dekker, A. L. A. J., Aerts, H. J. W. L., & Kann, B. H. (2023) · BJR|Open · doi:10.1093/bjro/tzae039 · Cited by 9
Lu, F., Zhao, Y., Wang, Z., & Feng, N. (2025) · BMC Cancer · doi:10.1186/s12885-025-14022-1 · Cited by 7
Mori, H., Kataoka, Y., Harada‐Shirado, K., Kawano, N., Hayakawa, M., Seki, Y., Uchiyama, T., Yamakawa, K., Ishikura, H., Irie, Y., et al. (2022) · Thrombosis Journal · doi:10.1186/s12959-022-00390-2 · Cited by 9
Prognostic Value and Immune Landscapes of m5C-Related lncRNAs in Lung Squamous Cell Carcinoma
Xu, R., & Zhang, W. (2022) · Frontiers in Genetics · doi:10.3389/fgene.2022.960229 · Cited by 7
Incorporation of biomarkers into a prediction model for paediatric radiographic pneumonia
Ramgopal, S., Ambroggio, L., Lorenz, D. J., Shah, S. S., Ruddy, R. M., & Florin, T. A. (2022) · ERJ Open Research · doi:10.1183/23120541.00339-2022 · Cited by 7
Interpretable prognostic modeling of endometrial cancer
Zagidullin, B., Pasanen, A. M., Loukovaara, M. J., Bützow, R. C., & Tang, J. P. (2022) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-022-26134-w · Cited by 7
Huo, Z., Chong, F., Yin, L., Li, N., Zhang, M., Guo, J., Lin, X., Fan, Y., Zhang, L., Zhang, H., et al. (2022) · Supportive Care in Cancer · doi:10.1007/s00520-022-07540-2 · Cited by 7
Cen, K., Wu, Z., Mai, Y., Dai, Y., Hong, K. M., & Guo, Y. (2023) · Frontiers in Genetics · doi:10.3389/fgene.2023.1074900 · Cited by 7
Hajouji, O. E., Sun, R., Zammit, A., Humphreys, K. N., Asch, S. M., Carroll, I. R., Curtin, C. M., & Hernandez‐Boussard, T. (2023) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1011376 · Cited by 7
CalibrationCurves: Calibration Performance
Cock, B. D., Barrenada, L., Daan, N., Calster, B. V., Steyerberg, E. W., & Vergouwe, Y. (2022) · doi:10.32614/cran.package.calibrationcurves · Cited by 7
Self-citationFurusato, S., Kurogochi, K., Mizuno, M., Shinoda, S., Tanoshima, R., & Uechi, M. (2025) · Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine · doi:10.1111/jvim.70152 · Cited by 6
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
