Don't be misled: 3 misconceptions about external validation of clinical prediction models

Publication date

2024-08

Authors

la Roi-Teeuw, Hannah M.
van Royen, Florien S.
de Hond, Anne
Zahra, Anum
de Vries, SjoerdISNI 0000000518083649
Bartels, Richard
Carriero, Alex J.
van Doorn, SanderISNI 0000000506294641
Dunias, Zoe S.
Kant, Ilse

Editors

Advisors

Supervisors

Document Type

Comment
Open Access logo

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