The Effect of Disease-prevalence Adjustments on the Accuracy of a Logistic Prediction Model

The accuracy of a logistic prediction model is degraded when it is transported to pop ulations with outcome prevalences different from that of the population used to derive the model. The resultant errors can have major clinical implications. Accordingly, the authors developed a logistic prediction model with respect to the noninvasive diagnosis of coronary disease based on 1,824 patients who underwent exercise testing and coronary angiography, varied the prevalence of disease in various "test" populations by random sampling of the original "derivation" population, and determined the accu racy of the logistic prediction model before and after the application of a mathematical algorithm designed to adjust only for these differences in prevalence. The accuracy of each prediction model was quantified in terms of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve area (discrimination) and chi-square goodness-of-fit (calibration). As the prevalence of the test population diverged from the prevalence of the derivation pop ulation, discrimination improved (ROC-curve areas increased from 0.82 ± 0.02 to 0.87 ± 0.03; p < 0.05), and calibration deteriorated (chi-square goodness-of-fit statistics increased from 9 to 154; p < 0.05). Following adjustment of the logistic intercept for differences in prevalence, discrimination was unchanged and calibration improved (maximum chi-square goodness-of-fit fell from 154 to 16). When the adjusted algorithm was applied to three geographically remote populations with prevalences that differed from that of the derivation population, calibration improved 87%, while discrimination fell by 1 %. Thus, prevalence differences produce statistically significant and potentially clinically important errors in the accuracy of logistic prediction models. These errors can potentially be mitigated by use of a relatively simple mathematical correction al gorithm. Key words: logistic prediction model; accuracy; prevalence adjustments; model transportability. (Med Decis Making 1996;16:133-142)

[1]  J. Wennberg,et al.  Multivariate Prediction of In‐Hospital Mortality Associated With Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery , 1992 .

[2]  P. Armitage,et al.  Statistical methods in medical research. , 1972 .

[3]  K. Lee,et al.  Methods for the analysis and assessment of clinical databases: the clinician's perspective. , 1991, Statistics in medicine.

[4]  G. Diamond,et al.  Incremental value of exercise electrocardiography and thallium-201 testing in men and women for the presence and extent of coronary artery disease. , 1995, American heart journal.

[5]  R A Greenes,et al.  Assessment of diagnostic tests when disease verification is subject to selection bias. , 1983, Biometrics.

[6]  Value of the History and Physical in Identifying Patients at Increased Risk for Coronary Artery Disease , 1993 .

[7]  C B Begg,et al.  Methodology for the Differential Diagnosis of a Complex Data Set , 1983, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[8]  R. Conant,et al.  Reproducibility of Predictor Variables from a Validated Clinical Rule , 1992, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[9]  S. Kaul,et al.  Independent and Incremental Prognostic Value of Tests Performed in Hierarchical Order to Evaluate Patients With Suspected Coronary Artery Disease: Validation of Models Based on These Tests , 1992, Circulation.

[10]  M A Hlatky,et al.  Identification of Patients With Coronary Disease at High Risk for Loss of Employment: A Prospective Validation Study , 1992, Circulation.

[11]  J. Hanley,et al.  A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. , 1983, Radiology.

[12]  R D Cebul,et al.  The importance of disease prevalence in transporting clinical prediction rules. The case of streptococcal pharyngitis. , 1986, Annals of internal medicine.

[13]  G. Diamond,et al.  Risky business: prospective applicability of models. , 1993, Circulation.

[14]  M Bobbio,et al.  Development and validation of a logistic regression-derived algorithm for estimating the incremental probability of coronary artery disease before and after exercise testing. , 1992, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[15]  Stuart L. Meyer,et al.  Data analysis for scientists and engineers , 1975 .

[16]  G A Diamond,et al.  Future imperfect: the limitations of clinical prediction models and the limits of clinical prediction. , 1989, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[17]  H. Sox,et al.  Clinical prediction rules. Applications and methodological standards. , 1985, The New England journal of medicine.

[18]  J. Hanley,et al.  The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. , 1982, Radiology.