The DOI matches its Crossref record; 59 of the 59 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Assessing the Generalizability of Prognostic Information
Abstract
Physicians are often asked to make prognostic assessments but often worry that their assessments will prove inaccurate. Prognostic systems were developed to enhance the accuracy of such assessments. This paper describes an approach for evaluating prognostic systems based on the accuracy (calibration and discrimination) and generalizability (reproducibility and transportability) of the system's predictions. Reproducibility is the ability to produce accurate predictions among patients not included in the development of the system but from the same population. Transportability is the ability to produce accurate predictions among patients drawn from a different but plausibly related population. On the basis of the observation that the generalizability of a prognostic system is commonly limited to a single historical period, geographic location, methodologic approach, disease spectrum, or follow-up interval, we describe a working hierarchy of the cumulative generalizability of prognostic systems. This approach is illustrated in a structured review of the Dukes and Jass staging systems for colon and rectal cancer and applied to a young man with colon cancer. Because it treats the development of the system as a "black box" and evaluates only the performance of the predictions, the approach can be applied to any system that generates predicted probabilities. Although the Dukes and Jass staging systems are discrete, the approach can also be applied to systems that generate continuous predictions and, with some modification, to systems that predict over multiple time periods. Like any scientific hypothesis, the generalizability of a prognostic system is established by being tested and being found accurate across increasingly diverse settings. The more numerous and diverse the settings in which the system is tested and found accurate, the more likely it will generalize to an untested setting.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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
“There is no external validity per se ; the term is meaningful only with regard to clearly specified conditions [ 217 ].”
From Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration (2007) · cites this paper as [217]
In the citing paper
“This quality becomes crucial when predictive models are deployed across different hospitals or healthcare systems, where variations in patient demographics, clinical practices, and data collection procedures can lead to inaccurate predictions [17, 18].”
From Toward generalizable and interpretable machine learning models in healthcare: Insights from ICU outcome predictions (2026) · cites this paper as [17]
Citations
Cites
Charlson, M. E., Pompei, P., Ales, K. L., & MacKenzie, C. R. (1987) · Journal of Chronic Diseases · doi:10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8 · Cited by 49,742
The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.
Hanley, J. A., & McNeil, B. J. (1982) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiology.143.1.7063747 · Cited by 21,856
Knaus, W. A., Draper, E. A., Wagner, D. P., & Zimmerman, J. E. (1985) · Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1097/00003246-198510000-00009 · Cited by 15,518
Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases
DEYO, R. (1992) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(92)90133-8 · Cited by 10,452
Measuring the Accuracy of Diagnostic Systems
Swets, J. A. (1988) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.3287615 · Cited by 10,058
Regression modelling strategies for improved prognostic prediction
Harrell, F. E., Lee, K. L., Califf, R. M., Pryor, D. B., & Rosati, R. A. (1984) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.4780030207 · Cited by 1,804
Problems of Spectrum and Bias in Evaluating the Efficacy of Diagnostic Tests
Ransohoff, D. F., & Feinstein, A. R. (1978) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm197810262991705 · Cited by 1,739
Clinical Prediction Rules: Applications and Methodological Standards
Wasson, J. H., Sox, H. C., Neff, R. K., & Goldman, L. (1985) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm198509263131306 · Cited by 1,357
The Spread of Rectal Cancer and its Effect on Prognosis
Dukes, C. E., & Bussey, H. J. R. (1958) · British Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1038/bjc.1958.37 · Cited by 806
Concato, J., Peduzzi, P. N., Holford, T. R., & Feinstein, A. R. (1995) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(95)00510-2 · Cited by 797
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- Liabakk NB, 1996, Cancer Res, 56, 190
- Vecchio FM, 1995, Rays, 20, 15
- Deans GT, 1994, J Am Coll Surg, 179, 11
- Fucci L, 1994, Pathologica, 86, 371
- Secco GB, 1990, Minerva Chir, 45, 1347
- Hart A, 1990, Med Inf (Lond), 15, 229
- Brewster AC, 1985, Inquiry, 22, 377
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Vandenbroucke, J. P., von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Gøtzsche, P. C., Mulrow, C. D., Pocock, S. J., Poole, C., Schlesselman, J. J., Egger, M., & Initiative, F. T. S. (2007) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040297 · Cited by 8,613
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
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
Collins, G. S., Reitsma, J. B., Altman, D. G., & Moons, K. G. M. (2015) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.g7594 · Cited by 4,388
Vandenbroucke, J. P., Elm, E. V., Altman, D. G., Gøtzsche, P. C., Mulrow, C. D., Pocock, S. J., Poole, C., Schlesselman, J. J., Egger, M., & initiative, F. T. S. (2007) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-147-8-200710160-00010-w1 · Cited by 3,543
Metadata
- Authors
- Justice, A. C., Covinsky, K. E., & Berlin, J. A.
- Affiliations
- San Francisco VA Medical Center (US)
- Corresponding author
- Justice, Amy C.
- ORCID
- Justice, Amy C.
- Venue
- Annals of Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American College of Physicians
- Published
- 1999-03-16
- Volume
- 130
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 515-524
- ISSN
- 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-3704
- OpenAlex
- W2089463633
- Cited by
- 1,160
- References
- 59
- Citations by year
- 2026: 19 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 46 · 2023: 56 · 2022: 63 · 2021: 49 · 2020: 48 · 2019: 51 · 2018: 44 · 2017: 60 · 2016: 47 · 2015: 67 · 2014: 55 · 2013: 44 · 2012: 47
- FWCI
- 24.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Annals of Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (5 T32 HS00009)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
- Keywords
- prognostic systems, generalizability, reproducibility, transportability, calibration, discrimination (statistics), colon cancer, rectal cancer, Dukes staging, cancer staging systems, prediction accuracy, black-box evaluation
- MeSH terms
- Calibration, Colonic Neoplasms, Evaluation Studies as Topic, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasm Staging, Prognosis, Rectal Neoplasms, Reproducibility of Results
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: Assessing the Generalizability of Prognostic Information. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7326/0003-4819-130-6-199903160-00016
- The paper
- Justice, A. C., Covinsky, K. E., & Berlin, J. A. (1999). Assessing the Generalizability of Prognostic Information. Annals of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-130-6-199903160-00016