Evaluation of clinical prediction models across multiple clusters, whether centers or datasets, is becoming increasingly common. A comprehensive evaluation includes an assessment of the agreement between the estimated risks and the observed outcomes, also known as calibration. Calibration is of utmost importance for clinical decision making with prediction models and it may vary between clusters. We present three approaches to take clustering into account when evaluating calibration. (1) Clustered group calibration (CG-C), (2) two stage meta-analysis calibration (2MA-C) and (3) mixed model calibration (MIX-C) can obtain flexible calibration plots with random effects modelling and providing confidence and prediction intervals. As a case example, we externally validate a model to estimate the risk that an ovarian tumor is malignant in multiple centers (N = 2489). We also conduct a simulation study and synthetic data study generated from a true clustered dataset to evaluate the methods. In the simulation and the synthetic data analysis MIX-C gave estimated curves closest to the true overall and center specific curves. Prediction interval was best for 2MA-C with splines. Standard flexible calibration worked likewise in terms of calibration error when sample size is limited. We recommend using 2MA-C (splines) to estimate the curve with the average effect and the 95% PI and MIX-C for the cluster specific curves, specially when sample size per cluster is limited. We provide ready-to-use code to construct summary flexible calibration curves with confidence and prediction intervals to assess heterogeneity in calibration across datasets or centers.
Barreñada et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: