↓ Skip to main content

Review and evaluation of performance measures for survival prediction models in external validation settings

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
127 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Review and evaluation of performance measures for survival prediction models in external validation settings
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12874-017-0336-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

M. Shafiqur Rahman, Gareth Ambler, Babak Choodari-Oskooei, Rumana Z. Omar

Abstract

When developing a prediction model for survival data it is essential to validate its performance in external validation settings using appropriate performance measures. Although a number of such measures have been proposed, there is only limited guidance regarding their use in the context of model validation. This paper reviewed and evaluated a wide range of performance measures to provide some guidelines for their use in practice. An extensive simulation study based on two clinical datasets was conducted to investigate the performance of the measures in external validation settings. Measures were selected from categories that assess the overall performance, discrimination and calibration of a survival prediction model. Some of these have been modified to allow their use with validation data, and a case study is provided to describe how these measures can be estimated in practice. The measures were evaluated with respect to their robustness to censoring and ease of interpretation. All measures are implemented, or are straightforward to implement, in statistical software. Most of the performance measures were reasonably robust to moderate levels of censoring. One exception was Harrell's concordance measure which tended to increase as censoring increased. We recommend that Uno's concordance measure is used to quantify concordance when there are moderate levels of censoring. Alternatively, Gönen and Heller's measure could be considered, especially if censoring is very high, but we suggest that the prediction model is re-calibrated first. We also recommend that Royston's D is routinely reported to assess discrimination since it has an appealing interpretation. The calibration slope is useful for both internal and external validation settings and recommended to report routinely. Our recommendation would be to use any of the predictive accuracy measures and provide the corresponding predictive accuracy curves. In addition, we recommend to investigate the characteristics of the validation data such as the level of censoring and the distribution of the prognostic index derived in the validation setting before choosing the performance measures.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 126 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 19%
Researcher 23 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Student > Postgraduate 9 7%
Student > Master 9 7%
Other 25 20%
Unknown 27 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 31%
Mathematics 15 12%
Computer Science 10 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Engineering 5 4%
Other 23 18%
Unknown 29 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 November 2017.
All research outputs
#6,260,405
of 22,965,074 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#940
of 2,027 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,998
of 310,294 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#15
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,965,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,027 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,294 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.