1
|
Pollack J, Yang W, Schnellinger EM, Arnaoutakis GJ, Kallan MJ, Kimmel SE. Dynamic prediction modeling of postoperative mortality among patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement in a statewide cohort over a 12-year period. JTCVS OPEN 2023; 15:94-112. [PMID: 37808034 PMCID: PMC10556941 DOI: 10.1016/j.xjon.2023.07.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/13/2023] [Revised: 06/07/2023] [Accepted: 06/21/2023] [Indexed: 10/10/2023]
Abstract
Objective Clinical prediction models for surgical aortic valve replacement mortality, are valuable decision tools but are often limited in their ability to account for changes in medical practice, patient selection, and the risk of outcomes over time. Recent research has identified methods to update models as new data accrue, but their effect on model performance has not been rigorously tested. Methods The study population included 44,546 adults who underwent an isolated surgical aortic valve replacement from January 1, 1999, to December 31, 2018, statewide in Pennsylvania. After chronologically splitting the data into training and validation sets, we compared calibration, discrimination, and accuracy measures amongst a nonupdating model to 2 methods of model updating: calibration regression and the novel dynamic logistic state space model. Results The risk of mortality decreased significantly during the validation period (P < .01) and the nonupdating model demonstrated poor calibration and reduced accuracy over time. Both updating models maintained better calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow χ2 statistic) than the nonupdating model: nonupdating (156.5), calibration regression (4.9), and dynamic logistic state space model (8.0). Overall accuracy (Brier score) was consistently better across both updating models: dynamic logistic state space model (0.0252), calibration regression (0.0253), and nonupdating (0.0256). Discrimination improved with the dynamic logistic state space model (area under the curve, 0.696) compared with the nonupdating model (area under the curve, 0.685) and calibration regression method (area under the curve, 0.687). Conclusions Dynamic model updating can improve model accuracy, discrimination, and calibration. The decision as to which method to use may depend on which measure is most important in each clinical context. Because competing therapies have emerged for valve replacement models, updating may guide clinical decision making.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jackie Pollack
- Department of Epidemiology, College of Public Health and Health Professions and College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla
| | - Wei Yang
- Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pa
| | | | - George J. Arnaoutakis
- Division of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School, Austin, Tex
| | - Michael J. Kallan
- Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pa
| | - Stephen E. Kimmel
- Department of Epidemiology, College of Public Health and Health Professions and College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Levy TJ, Coppa K, Cang J, Barnaby DP, Paradis MD, Cohen SL, Makhnevich A, van Klaveren D, Kent DM, Davidson KW, Hirsch JS, Zanos TP. Development and validation of self-monitoring auto-updating prognostic models of survival for hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Nat Commun 2022; 13:6812. [PMID: 36357420 PMCID: PMC9648888 DOI: 10.1038/s41467-022-34646-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/08/2022] [Accepted: 11/02/2022] [Indexed: 11/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Clinical prognostic models can assist patient care decisions. However, their performance can drift over time and location, necessitating model monitoring and updating. Despite rapid and significant changes during the pandemic, prognostic models for COVID-19 patients do not currently account for these drifts. We develop a framework for continuously monitoring and updating prognostic models and apply it to predict 28-day survival in COVID-19 patients. We use demographic, laboratory, and clinical data from electronic health records of 34912 hospitalized COVID-19 patients from March 2020 until May 2022 and compare three modeling methods. Model calibration performance drift is immediately detected with minor fluctuations in discrimination. The overall calibration on the prospective validation cohort is significantly improved when comparing the dynamically updated models against their static counterparts. Our findings suggest that, using this framework, models remain accurate and well-calibrated across various waves, variants, race and sex and yield positive net-benefits.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Todd J Levy
- Institute of Health System Science, Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Northwell Health, Manhasset, NY, 11030, USA
- Institute of Bioelectronic Medicine, Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Northwell Health, Manhasset, NY, 11030, USA
| | - Kevin Coppa
- Clinical Digital Solutions, Northwell Health, New Hyde Park, NY, 11042, USA
| | - Jinxuan Cang
- Institute of Health System Science, Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Northwell Health, Manhasset, NY, 11030, USA
- Institute of Bioelectronic Medicine, Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Northwell Health, Manhasset, NY, 11030, USA
| | - Douglas P Barnaby
- Institute of Health System Science, Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Northwell Health, Manhasset, NY, 11030, USA
- Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Northwell Health, Hempstead, NY, 11549, USA
| | - Marc D Paradis
- Northwell Holdings, Northwell Health, Manhasset, NY, 11030, USA
| | - Stuart L Cohen
- Institute of Health System Science, Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Northwell Health, Manhasset, NY, 11030, USA
- Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Northwell Health, Hempstead, NY, 11549, USA
| | - Alex Makhnevich
- Institute of Health System Science, Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Northwell Health, Manhasset, NY, 11030, USA
- Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Northwell Health, Hempstead, NY, 11549, USA
| | - David van Klaveren
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands
- Predictive Analytics and Comparative Effectiveness Center, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - David M Kent
- Predictive Analytics and Comparative Effectiveness Center, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Karina W Davidson
- Institute of Health System Science, Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Northwell Health, Manhasset, NY, 11030, USA
- Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Northwell Health, Hempstead, NY, 11549, USA
| | - Jamie S Hirsch
- Institute of Health System Science, Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Northwell Health, Manhasset, NY, 11030, USA
- Clinical Digital Solutions, Northwell Health, New Hyde Park, NY, 11042, USA
- Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Northwell Health, Hempstead, NY, 11549, USA
| | - Theodoros P Zanos
- Institute of Health System Science, Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Northwell Health, Manhasset, NY, 11030, USA.
- Institute of Bioelectronic Medicine, Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Northwell Health, Manhasset, NY, 11030, USA.
- Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Northwell Health, Hempstead, NY, 11549, USA.
| |
Collapse
|