The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
External validation of a Cox prognostic model: principles and methods
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: A prognostic model should not enter clinical practice unless it has been demonstrated that it performs a useful role. External validation denotes evaluation of model performance in a sample independent of that used to develop the model. Unlike for logistic regression models, external validation of Cox models is sparsely treated in the literature. Successful validation of a model means achieving satisfactory discrimination and calibration (prediction accuracy) in the validation sample. Validating Cox models is not straightforward because event probabilities are estimated relative to an unspecified baseline function. METHODS: We describe statistical approaches to external validation of a published Cox model according to the level of published information, specifically (1) the prognostic index only, (2) the prognostic index together with Kaplan-Meier curves for risk groups, and (3) the first two plus the baseline survival curve (the estimated survival function at the mean prognostic index across the sample). The most challenging task, requiring level 3 information, is assessing calibration, for which we suggest a method of approximating the baseline survival function. RESULTS: We apply the methods to two comparable datasets in primary breast cancer, treating one as derivation and the other as validation sample. Results are presented for discrimination and calibration. We demonstrate plots of survival probabilities that can assist model evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Our validation methods are applicable to a wide range of prognostic studies and provide researchers with a toolkit for external validation of a published Cox model.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
Martin Bland, J., & Altman, D. (1986) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8 · Cited by 47,965
Self-citation(1990) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.27-3338 · Cited by 35,305
Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (2000) · doi:10.1002/0471722146 · Cited by 20,302
ASSESSMENT OF COMA AND IMPAIRED CONSCIOUSNESS
Teasdale, G., & Jennett, B. (1974) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(74)91639-0 · Cited by 13,215
The Statistical Analysis of Failure Time Data.
Aitkin, M., Kalbfleisch, J. D., & Prentice, R. L. (1981) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2530581 · Cited by 9,877
Harrell, F. E. (2001) · Springer Series in Statistics · doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-3462-1 · Cited by 9,195
Evaluating the Yield of Medical Tests
Harrell, F. E. (1982) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.1982.03320430047030 · Cited by 3,490
Clinical 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
The Statistical Analysis of Failure Time Data
Kalbfleisch, J. D., & Prentice, R. L. (2002) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/9781118032985 · Cited by 3,219
Flexible regression models with cubic splines
Durrleman, S., & Simon, R. (1989) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.4780080504 · Cited by 2,689
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Valsecchi MG, Miller ME, Hui SL: Evaluation of long-term survival: use of diagnostic and robust estimators with Cox’s proportional hazards model. Stat Med. 1996, 15: 2763-2780. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19961230)15:24<2763::AID-SIM319>3.0.CO;2-O. · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19961230)15:24<2763::aid-sim319>3.0.co;2-o
- Anyanwu AC, Rogers CA, Murday AJ: A simple approach to risk stratification in adult heart disease. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1999, 16: 424-428. 10.1016/S1010-7940(99)00238-9. · doi:10.1016/s1010-7940(99)00238-9
- StataCorp Stata Release 12. 2011, Stata Press
- Henderson R, Keiding N: Individual survival time prediction using statistical models. J Med Ethics. 2005, 31: 703-706. 10.1136/jme.2005.012427. · doi:10.1136/jme.2005.012427
Cited by
Moons, K. G. M., Altman, D. G., Reitsma, J. B., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Macaskill, P., Steyerberg, E. W., Vickers, A. J., Ransohoff, D. F., & Collins, G. S. (2015) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m14-0698 · Cited by 5,147
Self-citationAn inflammatory cytokine signature predicts COVID-19 severity and survival
Del Valle, D. M., Kim-Schulze, S., Huang, H.-H., Beckmann, N. D., Nirenberg, S., Wang, B., Lavin, Y., Swartz, T. H., Madduri, D., Stock, A., et al. (2020) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-020-1051-9 · Cited by 2,605
Moons, K. G. M., de Groot, J. A. H., Bouwmeester, W., Vergouwe, Y., Mallett, S., Altman, D. G., Reitsma, J. B., & Collins, G. S. (2014) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001744 · Cited by 2,018
Self-citationKatzman, J. L., Shaham, U., Cloninger, A., Bates, J., Jiang, T., & Kluger, Y. (2018) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-018-0482-1 · Cited by 1,995
“Medical researchers use survival models to evaluate the significance of prognostic variables in outcomes such as death or cancer recurrence and subsequently inform patients of their treatment options [1, 2, 3, 4].”
BackgroundTowards better clinical prediction models: seven steps for development and an ABCD for validation
Steyerberg, E. W., & Vergouwe, Y. (2014) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehu207 · Cited by 1,928
Metadata
- Authors
- Royston, P., & Altman, D. G.
- Venue
- BMC Medical Research Methodology
- Published
- 2013-03-06
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 33-33
- ISSN
- 1471-2288 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1985299015
- Cited by
- 911
- References
- 45
- FWCI
- 26.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- Licence
- creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 (tdm)
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: External validation of a Cox prognostic model: principles and methods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1471-2288-13-33
- The paper
- Royston, P., & Altman, D. G. (2013). External validation of a Cox prognostic model: principles and methods. BMC Medical Research Methodology. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-33
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.