Don't be misled: 3 misconceptions about external validation of clinical prediction models
Publication date
2024-08
Editors
Advisors
Supervisors
Document Type
Comment
Metadata
Show full item recordCollections
License
cc_by
Abstract
Clinical prediction models provide risks of health outcomes that can inform patients and support medical decisions. However, most models never make it to actual implementation in practice. A commonly heard reason for this lack of implementation is that prediction models are often not externally validated. While we generally encourage external validation, we argue that an external validation is often neither sufficient nor required as an essential step before implementation. As such, any available external validation should not be perceived as a license for model implementation. We clarify this argument by discussing 3 common misconceptions about external validation. We argue that there is not one type of recommended validation design, not always a necessity for external validation, and sometimes a need for multiple external validations. The insights from this paper can help readers to consider, design, interpret, and appreciate external validation studies.
Keywords
Artificial intelligence, Clinical algorithm, Clinical prediction model, External validation, Internal validation, Machine learning, Model updating, Prediction model, Regression modelling, Study design, Epidemiology
Citation
la Roi-Teeuw, H M, van Royen, F S, de Hond, A, Zahra, A, de Vries, S, Bartels, R, Carriero, A J, van Doorn, S, Dunias, Z S, Kant, I, Leeuwenberg, T, Peters, R, Veerhoek, L, van Smeden, M & Luijken, K 2024, 'Don't be misled : 3 misconceptions about external validation of clinical prediction models', Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 172, 111387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111387