Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 911

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 access
Royston, Patrick, Altman, Douglas G·2013·BMC Medical Research Methodology

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1471-2288-13-33

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 45 references

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. StataCorp Stata Release 12. 2011, Stata Press
  4. 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

See all 911

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.