Aims: Various cardiovascular risk prediction models have been developed for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Yet few models have been validated externally. We perform a comprehensive validation of existing risk models on a heterogeneous population of patients with type 2 diabetes using secondary analysis of electronic health record data. Methods: Electronic health records of 47,988 patients with type 2 diabetes between 2013 and 2017 were used to validate 16 cardiovascular risk models, including 5 that had not been compared previously, to estimate the 1-year risk of various cardiovascular outcomes. Discrimination and calibration were assessed by the c-statistic and the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit statistic, respectively. Each model was also evaluated based on the missing measurement rate. Sub-analysis was performed to determine the impact of race on discrimination performance. Results: There was limited discrimination (c-statistics ranged from 0.51 to 0.67) across the cardiovascular risk models. Discrimination generally improved when the model was tailored towards the individual outcome. After recalibration of the models, the Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic yielded p-values above 0.05. However, several of the models with the best discrimination relied on measurements that were often imputed (up to 39% missing). Conclusion: No single prediction model achieved the best performance on a full range of cardiovascular endpoints. Moreover, several of the highest-scoring models relied on variables with high missingness frequencies such as HbA1c and cholesterol that necessitated data imputation and may not be as useful in practice. An open-source version of our developed Python package, cvdm, is available for comparisons using other data sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ho et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: