Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Dec 22;6(1):24.
doi: 10.1186/s41512-022-00136-8.

Targeted validation: validating clinical prediction models in their intended population and setting

Affiliations

Targeted validation: validating clinical prediction models in their intended population and setting

Matthew Sperrin et al. Diagn Progn Res. .

Abstract

Clinical prediction models must be appropriately validated before they can be used. While validation studies are sometimes carefully designed to match an intended population/setting of the model, it is common for validation studies to take place with arbitrary datasets, chosen for convenience rather than relevance. We call estimating how well a model performs within the intended population/setting "targeted validation". Use of this term sharpens the focus on the intended use of a model, which may increase the applicability of developed models, avoid misleading conclusions, and reduce research waste. It also exposes that external validation may not be required when the intended population for the model matches the population used to develop the model; here, a robust internal validation may be sufficient, especially if the development dataset was large.

Keywords: Clinical prediction model; Generalisability; Validation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

    1. Steyerberg EW. Clinical prediction models : a practical approach to development, validation, and updating. New York: Springer; 2019. p. 497.
    1. Hippisley-Cox J, Coupland C, Brindle P. Development and validation of QRISK3 risk prediction algorithms to estimate future risk of cardiovascular disease: prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2017;357:j2099. doi: 10.1136/bmj.j2099. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Nashef SAM, Roques F, Sharples LD, Nilsson J, Smith C, Goldstone AR, et al. EuroSCORE II†. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2012;41(4):734–745. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezs043. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hughes T, Riley RD, Callaghan MJ, Sergeant JC. The value of preseason screening for injury prediction: the development and internal validation of a multivariable prognostic model to predict indirect muscle injury risk in elite football (soccer) players. Sports Med - Open. 2020;6(1):22. doi: 10.1186/s40798-020-00249-8. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Riley RD, Ensor J, Snell KIE, Debray TPA, Altman DG, Moons KGM, et al. External validation of clinical prediction models using big datasets from e-health records or IPD meta-analysis: opportunities and challenges. BMJ. 2016;353:i3140. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i3140. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources