Cited by 486Statistical Methods in EpidemiologyArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareMachine Learning in Healthcare

A tutorial on calibration measurements and calibration models for clinical prediction models

Open access
Huang, Yingxiang, Li, Wentao, Macheret, Fima, Gabriel, Rodney A, Ohno-Machado, Lucila·2020·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

Our primary objective is to provide the clinical informatics community with an introductory tutorial on calibration measurements and calibration models for predictive models using existing R packages and custom implemented code in R on real and simulated data. Clinical predictive model performance is commonly published based on discrimination measures, but use of models for individualized predictions requires adequate model calibration. This tutorial is intended for clinical researchers who want to evaluate predictive models in terms of their applicability to a particular population. It is also for informaticians and for software engineers who want to understand the role that calibration plays in the evaluation of a clinical predictive model, and to provide them with a solid starting point to consider incorporating calibration evaluation and calibration models in their work. Covered topics include (1) an introduction to the importance of calibration in the clinical setting, (2) an illustration of the distinct roles that discrimination and calibration play in the assessment of clinical predictive models, (3) a tutorial and demonstration of selected calibration measurements, (4) a tutorial and demonstration of selected calibration models, and (5) a brief discussion of limitations of these methods and practical suggestions on how to use them in practice.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/jamia/ocz228

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. [15]Niculescu-Mizil A. Caruana Predicting good probabilities with supervised learning. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Machine Learning - ICML ‘05 New York, NY: ACM Press; 2005: 625– 32.
  2. [25]Guo C, Pleiss G, Sun Y, Weinberger K. On calibration of modern neural networks. In: Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning 2017; Sydney, Australia.
  3. [27]Cox DR. Two further applications of a model for binary regression. Biometrika 1958; 45 (3–4): 592–65.
  4. [37]Zadrozny B, Elkan C. Obtaining calibrated probability estimates from decision trees and naive Bayesian classifiers. In: Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Machine Learning; 2001: 609– 16.
  5. [40]Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project. HCUP Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2012. 21413206
  6. [52]Lee K, Lee K, Lee H, Shin J. Training confidence-calibrated classifiers for detecting out-of-distribution samples. Int: proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Learning Representations; April 30, 2018 to May 3, 2018; Vancouver, Canada.
  7. [53]Maddox W, Garipov T, Izmailov P, Vetrov D, Wilson AG. A simple baseline for Bayesian uncertainty in deep learning. arXiv 2019 Dec 31 [E-pub ahead of print].
  8. [57]Zadrozny B. Elkan Transforming classifier scores into accurate multiclass probability estimates. In: Proceedings of the Eighth ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining - KDD ‘02 New York, NY: ACM Press; 2002: 694– 9.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Huang, Y., Li, W., Macheret, F., Gabriel, R. A., & Ohno-Machado, L.
Affiliations
  • UC San Diego Health System (US)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • Department of Biomedical Informatics, UC San Diego Health, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA
Corresponding author
Huang, Yingxiang
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
2020-02-27
Volume
27
Issue
4
Pages
621-633
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W3007453563
Cited by
486
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 117 · 2025: 104 · 2024: 75 · 2023: 92 · 2022: 55 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 9
FWCI
7.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (R01GM118609, R01HL136835)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
Keywords
model calibration, calibration models, clinical prediction model, calibration measurements, discrimination (statistics), prediction model evaluation, personalized prediction, R package
MeSH terms
Calibration, Humans, ROC Curve, Models, Statistical, Logistic Models, Risk Assessment, Area Under Curve, Support Vector Machine

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.

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