» Articles » PMID: 23496923

External Validation of a Cox Prognostic Model: Principles and Methods

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Date 2013 Mar 19
PMID 23496923
Citations 360
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: A prognostic model should not enter clinical practice unless it has been demonstrated that it performs a useful role. External validation denotes evaluation of model performance in a sample independent of that used to develop the model. Unlike for logistic regression models, external validation of Cox models is sparsely treated in the literature. Successful validation of a model means achieving satisfactory discrimination and calibration (prediction accuracy) in the validation sample. Validating Cox models is not straightforward because event probabilities are estimated relative to an unspecified baseline function.

Methods: We describe statistical approaches to external validation of a published Cox model according to the level of published information, specifically (1) the prognostic index only, (2) the prognostic index together with Kaplan-Meier curves for risk groups, and (3) the first two plus the baseline survival curve (the estimated survival function at the mean prognostic index across the sample). The most challenging task, requiring level 3 information, is assessing calibration, for which we suggest a method of approximating the baseline survival function.

Results: We apply the methods to two comparable datasets in primary breast cancer, treating one as derivation and the other as validation sample. Results are presented for discrimination and calibration. We demonstrate plots of survival probabilities that can assist model evaluation.

Conclusions: Our validation methods are applicable to a wide range of prognostic studies and provide researchers with a toolkit for external validation of a published Cox model.

Citing Articles

Pilot study of an arterial enhancement fraction-based model for progression prediction in HCC undergoing chemoembolization.

Chai B, Xiang D, Zhou G, Zheng C Front Oncol. 2025; 15:1489450.

PMID: 40046631 PMC: 11879821. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2025.1489450.


Features of TP53-mutated patients with chronic myelomonocytic leukemia in a national (ABCMML) and international cohort (cBIOPORTAL).

Grass M, Geissler K Wien Med Wochenschr. 2025; .

PMID: 40042734 DOI: 10.1007/s10354-025-01072-0.


Analysis of the kidney failure risk equation implementation in routine clinical practice and health inequalities in chronic kidney disease care: a retrospective cohort study.

Walker H, Khan S, Padmanabhan S, Pell J, Lewsey J, Mackay D BMC Nephrol. 2025; 26(1):113.

PMID: 40038631 PMC: 11881359. DOI: 10.1186/s12882-025-04043-0.


Clinical prediction model for transition to psychosis in individuals meeting At Risk Mental State criteria.

Bonnett L, Hunt A, Flores A, Tudur Smith C, Varese F, Byrne R Schizophrenia (Heidelb). 2025; 11(1):29.

PMID: 40011470 PMC: 11865318. DOI: 10.1038/s41537-025-00582-5.


Monitoring for 5-aminosalicylate nephrotoxicity in adults with inflammatory bowel disease: prognostic model development and validation using data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

Abhishek A, Nakafero G, Card T, Taal M, Grainge M, Aithal G BMJ Open Gastroenterol. 2025; 12(1).

PMID: 39863289 PMC: 11784381. DOI: 10.1136/bmjgast-2024-001627.


References
1.
Bland J, Altman D . Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986; 1(8476):307-10. View

2.
Anyanwu A, Rogers C, Murday A . A simple approach to risk stratification in adult heart transplantation. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1999; 16(4):424-8. DOI: 10.1016/s1010-7940(99)00238-9. View

3.
Moons K, Royston P, Vergouwe Y, Grobbee D, Altman D . Prognosis and prognostic research: what, why, and how?. BMJ. 2009; 338:b375. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.b375. View

4.
Harrell Jr F, Califf R, Pryor D, Lee K, Rosati R . Evaluating the yield of medical tests. JAMA. 1982; 247(18):2543-6. View

5.
Henderson R, Keiding N . Individual survival time prediction using statistical models. J Med Ethics. 2005; 31(12):703-6. PMC: 1734073. DOI: 10.1136/jme.2005.012427. View