Search

Abstract Objective To assess whether the outcome generation true model could be identified from other candidate models for clinical practice with current conventional model performance measures considering various simulation scenarios and a CVD risk prediction as exemplar. Study design and setting Thousands of scenarios of true models were used to simulate clinical data, various candidate models and true models were trained on training datasets and then compared on testing datasets with 25 conventional use model performance measures. This consists of univariate simulation (179.2k simulated datasets and over 1.792 million models), multivariate simulation (728k simulated datasets and over 8.736 million models) and a CVD risk prediction case analysis. Results True models had overall C statistic and 95% range of 0.67 (0.51, 0.96) across all scenarios in univariate simulation, 0.81 (0.54, 0.98) in multivariate simulation, 0.85 (0.82, 0.88) in univariate case analysis and 0.85 (0.82, 0.88) in multivariate case analysis. Measures showed very clear differences between the true model and flip-coin model, little or none differences between the true model and candidate models with extra noises, relatively small differences between the true model and proxy models missing causal predictors. Conclusion The study found the true model is not always identified as the “outperformed” model by current conventional measures for binary outcome, even though such true model is presented in the clinical data. New statistical approaches or measures should be established to identify the casual true model from proxy models, especially for those in proxy models with extra noises and/or missing causal predictors.

Background There is a paucity of prognostic models for COVID-19 that are usable for in-office patient assessment in general practice (GP).Objectives To develop and validate a risk prediction model for hospital admission with readily available predictors.Methods A retrospective cohort study linking GP records from 8 COVID-19 centres and 55 general practices in the Netherlands to hospital admission records. The development cohort spanned March to June 2020, the validation cohort March to June 2021. The primary outcome was hospital admission within 14 days. We used geographic leave-region-out cross-validation in the development cohort and temporal validation in the validation cohort.Results In the development cohort, 4,806 adult patients with COVID-19 consulted their GP (median age 56, 56% female); in the validation cohort 830 patients did (median age 56, 52% female). In the development and validation cohort respectively, 292 (6.1%) and 126 (15.2%) were admitted to the hospital within 14 days, respectively. A logistic regression model based on sex, smoking, symptoms, vital signs and comorbidities predicted hospital admission with a c-index of 0.84 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.86) at geographic cross-validation and 0.79 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.83) at temporal validation, and was reasonably well calibrated (intercept −0.08, 95% CI −0.98 to 0.52, slope 0.89, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.07 at geographic cross-validation and intercept 0.02, 95% CI −0.21 to 0.24, slope 0.82, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.00 at temporal validation).Conclusion We derived a risk model using readily available variables at GP assessment to predict hospital admission for COVID-19. It performed accurately across regions and waves. Further validation on cohorts with acquired immunity and newer SARS-CoV-2 variants is recommended.

Jiongchao Guo,1,&ast; Yuan Zhou,1,&ast; Bingfeng Zhou2 1Department of Cardiology, the Third Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, Anhui, People’s Republic of China; 2Department of Cardiology, Hefei BOE Hospital, Hefei, Anhui, People’s Republic of China&ast;These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Bingfeng Zhou, Department of Cardiology, Hefei BOE Hospital, Hefei, Anhui, 230000, People’s Republic of China, Tel +8613956078803, Email xnkzbf@126.comBackground and Aims: Non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients face a 3– 5 times greater risk of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) compared to those without NVAF. This study aims to establish a novel clinical prediction model for AIS in elderly patients with NVAF by incorporating relevant biomarker indicators.Methods: A total of 301 individuals diagnosed with NVAF were selected for this investigation at the Third Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University. Based on the presence of AIS, patients were categorized into two groups: the Stroke Cohort and the Non-Stroke Cohort. Predictor screening was performed using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operation (LASSO) regression algorithm. The binary logistic regression equation was applied to fit the model, followed by internal validation using the bootstrap resampling method (1000 times). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, calibration degree curve plots, and clinical decision curve analysis (DCA) were generated, respectively. Finally, a nomogram was constructed to present the prediction model.Results: The final results of this study revealed that neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), red cell distribution width (RDW), lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)), systolic pressure, history of stroke, hyperlipidemia were independent risk factors for AIS in elderly patients with NVAF (P< 0.05). And the high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) was an independent protective factor (P< 0.05). By incorporating these indicators, a nomogram prediction model for predicting AIS in elderly patients with NVAF was constructed. Comparative analysis between the nomogram predictive model and CHA2DS2-VASc score revealed that the AUC of the nomogram predictive model surpassed that of the CHA2DS2-VASc score (AUC: 0.881vs 0.850).Conclusion: NLR, RDW, Lp(a), SP, history of stroke, hyperlipidemia, and HDL-C emerge as independent prognostic factors for acute ischemic stroke in elderly patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. The predictive utility of the nomogram model may potentially surpass that of the CHA2DS2-VASc scoring system.Keywords: acute ischemic stroke, non-valvular atrial fibrillation, nomogram, clinical risk prediction model

Abstract Background Clinical prediction models are useful in estimating a patient’s risk of having a certain disease or experiencing an event in the future based on their current characteristics. Defining an appropriate risk threshold to recommend intervention is a key challenge in bringing a risk prediction model to clinical application; such risk thresholds are often defined in an ad hoc way. This is problematic because tacitly assumed costs of false positive and false negative classifications may not be clinically sensible. For example, when choosing the risk threshold that maximizes the proportion of patients correctly classified, false positives and false negatives are assumed equally costly. Furthermore, small to moderate sample sizes may lead to unstable optimal thresholds, which requires a particularly cautious interpretation of results. Main text We discuss how three common myths about risk thresholds often lead to inappropriate risk stratification of patients. First, we point out the contexts of counseling and shared decision-making in which a continuous risk estimate is more useful than risk stratification. Second, we argue that threshold selection should reflect the consequences of the decisions made following risk stratification. Third, we emphasize that there is usually no universally optimal threshold but rather that a plausible risk threshold depends on the clinical context. Consequently, we recommend to present results for multiple risk thresholds when developing or validating a prediction model. Conclusion Bearing in mind these three considerations can avoid inappropriate allocation (and non-allocation) of interventions. Using discriminating and well-calibrated models will generate better clinical outcomes if context-dependent thresholds are used.