A systematic review of the status and methodological considerations for estimating risk of first ever stroke in the general population

Investigation of statistical methods used in prognostic prediction models for obstetric care: A 10 year-span cross-sectional study

INTRODUCTION

Obstetric care is a highly active area in the development and application of prognostic prediction models. The development and validation of these models often require the utilization of advanced statistical techniques. However, failure to adhere to rigorous methodological standards could greatly undermine the reliability and trustworthiness of the resultant models. Consequently, the aim of our study was to examine the current statistical practices employed in obstetric care and offer recommendations to enhance the utilization of statistical methods in the development of prognostic prediction models.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional survey using a sample of studies developing or validating prognostic prediction models for obstetric care published in a 10-year span (2011-2020). A structured questionnaire was developed to investigate the statistical issues in five domains, including model derivation (predictor selection and algorithm development), model validation (internal and external), model performance, model presentation, and risk threshold setting. On the ground of survey results and existing guidelines, a list of recommendations for statistical methods in prognostic models was developed.

RESULTS

A total of 112 eligible studies were included, with 107 reporting model development and five exclusively reporting external validation. During model development, 58.9% of the studies did not include any form of validation. Of these, 46.4% used stepwise regression in a crude manner for predictor selection, while two-thirds made decisions on retaining or dropping candidate predictors solely based on p-values. Additionally, 26.2% transformed continuous predictors into categorical variables, and 80.4% did not consider nonlinear relationships between predictors and outcomes. Surprisingly, 94.4% of the studies did not examine the correlation between predictors. Moreover, 47.1% of the studies did not compare population characteristics between the development and external validation datasets, and only one-fifth evaluated both discrimination and calibration. Furthermore, 53.6% of the studies did not clearly present the model, and less than half established a risk threshold to define risk categories. In light of these findings, 10 recommendations were formulated to promote the appropriate use of statistical methods.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of statistical methods is not yet optimal. Ten recommendations were offered to assist the statistical methods of prognostic prediction models in obstetric care.

Determining the Proportionality of Ischemic Stroke Risk Factors to Age

While age is an important risk factor, there are some disadvantages to including it in a stroke risk model: age can dominate the risk score and lead to over- or under-predictions in some age groups. There is evidence to suggest that some of these disadvantages are due to the non-proportionality of other risk factors with age, e.g., risk factors contribute differently to stroke risk based on an individual's age. In this paper, we present a framework to test if risk factors are proportional with age. We then apply the framework to a set of risk factors using Framingham heart study data from the NHLBI Biologic Specimen and Data Repository Information Coordinating Center to determine if we can find evidence of non-proportionality. Using our framework, we find that a number of risk factors (diastolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, BMI, sex, high blood pressure treatment) may be non-proportional to age. This suggests that testing for the proportionality of risk factors with age should be something that is considered in stroke risk prediction modelling and traditional modelling methods may need to be adjusted to capture this non-proportionality.

A review of risk concepts and models for predicting the risk of primary stroke

Predicting an individual's risk of primary stroke is an important tool that can help to lower the burden of stroke for both the individual and society. There are a number of risk models and risk scores in existence but no review or classification designed to help the reader better understand how models differ and the reasoning behind these differences. In this paper we review the existing literature on primary stroke risk prediction models. From our literature review we identify key similarities and differences in the existing models. We find that models can differ in a number of ways, including the event type, the type of analysis, the model type and the time horizon. Based on these similarities and differences we have created a set of questions and a system to help answer those questions that modelers and readers alike can use to help classify and better understand the existing models as well as help to make necessary decisions when creating a new model.

Prediction Models to Estimate the Future Risk of Osteoarthritis in the General Population: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the performance and applicability of multivariable prediction models for osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

This was a systematic review and narrative synthesis using 3 databases (EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science) from inception to December 2021. We included general population longitudinal studies reporting derivation, comparison, or validation of multivariable models to predict individual risk of OA incidence, defined by recognized clinical or imaging criteria. We excluded studies reporting prevalent OA and joint arthroplasty outcome. Paired reviewers independently performed article selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment. Model performance, calibration, and retained predictors were summarized.

RESULTS

A total of 26 studies were included, reporting 31 final multivariable prediction models for incident knee (23), hip (4), hand (3) and any-site OA (1), with a median of 121.5 (range 27-12,803) outcome events, a median prediction horizon of 8 years (range 2-41), and a median of 6 predictors (range 3-24). Age, body mass index, previous injury, and occupational exposures were among the most commonly included predictors. Model discrimination after validation was generally acceptable to excellent (area under the curve = 0.70-0.85). Either internal or external validation processes were used in most models, although the risk of bias was often judged to be high with limited applicability to mass application in diverse populations.

CONCLUSION

Despite growing interest in multivariable prediction models for incident OA, focus remains predominantly on the knee, with reliance on data from a small pool of appropriate cohort data sets, and concerns over general population applicability.