Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medicine 1/2022

Open Access 01-12-2022 | Research article

External validation of inpatient neonatal mortality prediction models in high-mortality settings

Authors: Timothy Tuti, Gary Collins, Mike English, Jalemba Aluvaala, on behalf of the Clinical Information Network

Published in: BMC Medicine | Issue 1/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Two neonatal mortality prediction models, the Neonatal Essential Treatment Score (NETS) which uses treatments prescribed at admission and the Score for Essential Neonatal Symptoms and Signs (SENSS) which uses basic clinical signs, were derived in high-mortality, low-resource settings to utilise data more likely to be available in these settings. In this study, we evaluate the predictive accuracy of two neonatal prediction models for all-cause in-hospital mortality.

Methods

We used retrospectively collected routine clinical data recorded by duty clinicians at admission from 16 Kenyan hospitals used to externally validate and update the SENSS and NETS models that were initially developed from the data from the largest Kenyan maternity hospital to predict in-hospital mortality. Model performance was evaluated by assessing discrimination and calibration. Discrimination, the ability of the model to differentiate between those with and without the outcome, was measured using the c-statistic. Calibration, the agreement between predictions from the model and what was observed, was measured using the calibration intercept and slope (with values of 0 and 1 denoting perfect calibration).

Results

At initial external validation, the estimated mortality risks from the original SENSS and NETS models were markedly overestimated with calibration intercepts of − 0.703 (95% CI − 0.738 to − 0.669) and − 1.109 (95% CI − 1.148 to − 1.069) and too extreme with calibration slopes of 0.565 (95% CI 0.552 to 0.577) and 0.466 (95% CI 0.451 to 0.480), respectively. After model updating, the calibration of the model improved. The updated SENSS and NETS models had calibration intercepts of 0.311 (95% CI 0.282 to 0.350) and 0.032 (95% CI − 0.002 to 0.066) and calibration slopes of 1.029 (95% CI 1.006 to 1.051) and 0.799 (95% CI 0.774 to 0.823), respectively, while showing good discrimination with c-statistics of 0.834 (95% CI 0.829 to 0.839) and 0.775 (95% CI 0.768 to 0.782), respectively. The overall calibration performance of the updated SENSS and NETS models was better than any existing neonatal in-hospital mortality prediction models externally validated for settings comparable to Kenya.

Conclusion

Few prediction models undergo rigorous external validation. We show how external validation using data from multiple locations enables model updating and improving their performance and potential value. The improved models indicate it is possible to predict in-hospital mortality using either treatments or signs and symptoms derived from routine neonatal data from low-resource hospital settings also making possible their use for case-mix adjustment when contrasting similar hospital settings.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Hug L, et al. National, regional, and global levels and trends in neonatal mortality between 1990 and 2017, with scenario-based projections to 2030: a systematic analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2019;7(6):e710–20.CrossRef Hug L, et al. National, regional, and global levels and trends in neonatal mortality between 1990 and 2017, with scenario-based projections to 2030: a systematic analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2019;7(6):e710–20.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference United Nations General Assembly. Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. 2016. United Nations General Assembly. Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. 2016.
3.
go back to reference Murphy GA, et al. Effective coverage of essential inpatient care for small and sick newborns in a high mortality urban setting: a cross-sectional study in Nairobi City County. Kenya BMC Med. 2018;16(1):1–11.CrossRef Murphy GA, et al. Effective coverage of essential inpatient care for small and sick newborns in a high mortality urban setting: a cross-sectional study in Nairobi City County. Kenya BMC Med. 2018;16(1):1–11.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Kihuba E, et al. Assessing the ability of health information systems in hospitals to support evidence-informed decisions in Kenya. Glob Health Action. 2014;7(1):24859.CrossRef Kihuba E, et al. Assessing the ability of health information systems in hospitals to support evidence-informed decisions in Kenya. Glob Health Action. 2014;7(1):24859.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Hagel C, et al. Data for tracking SDGs: challenges in capturing neonatal data from hospitals in Kenya. BMJ Glob Health. 2020;5(3):e002108.CrossRef Hagel C, et al. Data for tracking SDGs: challenges in capturing neonatal data from hospitals in Kenya. BMJ Glob Health. 2020;5(3):e002108.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Jencks SF, Dobson A. Refining case-mix adjustment. N Engl J Med. 1987;317(11):679–86.CrossRef Jencks SF, Dobson A. Refining case-mix adjustment. N Engl J Med. 1987;317(11):679–86.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Steyerberg EW, et al. Prognosis Research Strategy (PROGRESS) 3: prognostic model research. PLoS Med. 2013;10(2):e1001381.CrossRef Steyerberg EW, et al. Prognosis Research Strategy (PROGRESS) 3: prognostic model research. PLoS Med. 2013;10(2):e1001381.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Aluvaala J, et al. A systematic review of neonatal treatment intensity scores and their potential application in low-resource setting hospitals for predicting mortality, morbidity and estimating resource use. Syst Rev. 2017;6(1):1–12.CrossRef Aluvaala J, et al. A systematic review of neonatal treatment intensity scores and their potential application in low-resource setting hospitals for predicting mortality, morbidity and estimating resource use. Syst Rev. 2017;6(1):1–12.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Moons KG, et al. Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(1):W1–73.CrossRef Moons KG, et al. Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(1):W1–73.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Tuti T, et al. Innovating to enhance clinical data management using non-commercial and open source solutions across a multi-center network supporting inpatient pediatric care and research in Kenya. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016;23(1):184–92.CrossRef Tuti T, et al. Innovating to enhance clinical data management using non-commercial and open source solutions across a multi-center network supporting inpatient pediatric care and research in Kenya. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016;23(1):184–92.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Medvedev MM, et al. Development and validation of a simplified score to predict neonatal mortality risk among neonates weighing 2000 g or less (NMR-2000): an analysis using data from the UK and The Gambia. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2020;4(4):299–311.CrossRef Medvedev MM, et al. Development and validation of a simplified score to predict neonatal mortality risk among neonates weighing 2000 g or less (NMR-2000): an analysis using data from the UK and The Gambia. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2020;4(4):299–311.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Aluvaala J, et al. Prediction modelling of inpatient neonatal mortality in high-mortality settings. Arch Dis Child. 2020;106(5):449–54.CrossRef Aluvaala J, et al. Prediction modelling of inpatient neonatal mortality in high-mortality settings. Arch Dis Child. 2020;106(5):449–54.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Kent P, et al. A conceptual framework for prognostic research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20(1):1–13.CrossRef Kent P, et al. A conceptual framework for prognostic research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20(1):1–13.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Altman DG, Royston P. What do we mean by validating a prognostic model? Stat Med. 2000;19(4):453–73.CrossRef Altman DG, Royston P. What do we mean by validating a prognostic model? Stat Med. 2000;19(4):453–73.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Van Calster B, et al. Calibration: the Achilles heel of predictive analytics. BMC Med. 2019;17(1):1–7.CrossRef Van Calster B, et al. Calibration: the Achilles heel of predictive analytics. BMC Med. 2019;17(1):1–7.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Collins GS, et al. Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement. Circulation. 2015;131(2):211–9.CrossRef Collins GS, et al. Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement. Circulation. 2015;131(2):211–9.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Maina M, et al. Using a common data platform to facilitate audit and feedback on the quality of hospital care provided to sick newborns in Kenya. BMJ Glob Health. 2018;3(5):e001027.CrossRef Maina M, et al. Using a common data platform to facilitate audit and feedback on the quality of hospital care provided to sick newborns in Kenya. BMJ Glob Health. 2018;3(5):e001027.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Irimu G, et al. Neonatal mortality in Kenyan hospitals: a multisite, retrospective, cohort study. BMJ Glob Health. 2021;6(5):e004475.CrossRef Irimu G, et al. Neonatal mortality in Kenyan hospitals: a multisite, retrospective, cohort study. BMJ Glob Health. 2021;6(5):e004475.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Harris PA, et al. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377–81.CrossRef Harris PA, et al. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377–81.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Su T-L, et al. A review of statistical updating methods for clinical prediction models. Stat Methods Med Res. 2018;27(1):185–97.CrossRef Su T-L, et al. A review of statistical updating methods for clinical prediction models. Stat Methods Med Res. 2018;27(1):185–97.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Aluvaala J, et al. Assessment of neonatal care in clinical training facilities in Kenya. Arch Dis Child. 2015;100(1):42–7.CrossRef Aluvaala J, et al. Assessment of neonatal care in clinical training facilities in Kenya. Arch Dis Child. 2015;100(1):42–7.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Vergouwe Y, Steyerberg EW, Eijkemans MJ, Habbema JDF. Substantial effective sample sizes were required for external validation studies of predictive logistic regression models. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005:58(5):475–83. Vergouwe Y, Steyerberg EW, Eijkemans MJ, Habbema JDF. Substantial effective sample sizes were required for external validation studies of predictive logistic regression models. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005:58(5):475–83.
24.
go back to reference Riley RD, et al. Minimum sample size for developing a multivariable prediction model: part II-binary and time-to-event outcomes. Stat Med. 2019;38(7):1276–96.CrossRef Riley RD, et al. Minimum sample size for developing a multivariable prediction model: part II-binary and time-to-event outcomes. Stat Med. 2019;38(7):1276–96.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Ogundimu EO, Altman DG, Collins GS. Adequate sample size for developing prediction models is not simply related to events per variable. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;76:175–82.CrossRef Ogundimu EO, Altman DG, Collins GS. Adequate sample size for developing prediction models is not simply related to events per variable. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;76:175–82.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Harrell FE, Dupont C. Hmisc: harrell miscellaneous. R package version. 2008:3(2):437. Harrell FE, Dupont C. Hmisc: harrell miscellaneous. R package version. 2008:3(2):437.
27.
go back to reference Hardt J, Herke M, Leonhart R. Auxiliary variables in multiple imputation in regression with missing X: a warning against including too many in small sample research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12(1):1–13.CrossRef Hardt J, Herke M, Leonhart R. Auxiliary variables in multiple imputation in regression with missing X: a warning against including too many in small sample research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12(1):1–13.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Steyerberg EW, Vergouwe Y. Towards better clinical prediction models: seven steps for development and an ABCD for validation. Eur Heart J. 2014;35(29):1925–31.CrossRef Steyerberg EW, Vergouwe Y. Towards better clinical prediction models: seven steps for development and an ABCD for validation. Eur Heart J. 2014;35(29):1925–31.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference White IR, Royston P, Wood AM. Multiple imputation using chained equations: issues and guidance for practice. Stat Med. 2011;30(4):377–99.CrossRef White IR, Royston P, Wood AM. Multiple imputation using chained equations: issues and guidance for practice. Stat Med. 2011;30(4):377–99.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Honaker J, King G, Blackwell M. Amelia II: a program for missing data. J Stat Softw. 2011;45(7):1–47.CrossRef Honaker J, King G, Blackwell M. Amelia II: a program for missing data. J Stat Softw. 2011;45(7):1–47.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Riley RD, 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.CrossRef Riley RD, 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.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Van Calster B, et al. Validation and updating of risk models based on multinomial logistic regression. Diagn Progn Res. 2017;1(1):1–14.CrossRef Van Calster B, et al. Validation and updating of risk models based on multinomial logistic regression. Diagn Progn Res. 2017;1(1):1–14.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Zou H, Hastie T. Regularization and variable selection via the elastic net. J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol. 2005;67(2):301–20.CrossRef Zou H, Hastie T. Regularization and variable selection via the elastic net. J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol. 2005;67(2):301–20.CrossRef
34.
go back to reference Kohavi Ron. "A study of cross-validation and bootstrap for accuracy estimation and model selection." In Ijcai. 1995;14(2):1137–45. Kohavi Ron. "A study of cross-validation and bootstrap for accuracy estimation and model selection." In Ijcai. 1995;14(2):1137–45.
35.
go back to reference Takada T, et al. Internal-external cross-validation helped to evaluate the generalizability of prediction models in large clustered datasets. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;137:83–91.CrossRef Takada T, et al. Internal-external cross-validation helped to evaluate the generalizability of prediction models in large clustered datasets. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;137:83–91.CrossRef
37.
go back to reference Opiyo N, English M. What clinical signs best identify severe illness in young infants aged 0–59 days in developing countries? A systematic review. Arch Dis Child. 2011;96(11):1052–9.CrossRef Opiyo N, English M. What clinical signs best identify severe illness in young infants aged 0–59 days in developing countries? A systematic review. Arch Dis Child. 2011;96(11):1052–9.CrossRef
38.
go back to reference Rufibach K. Use of Brier score to assess binary predictions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(8):938–9.CrossRef Rufibach K. Use of Brier score to assess binary predictions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(8):938–9.CrossRef
39.
go back to reference Houweling TA, et al. A prediction model for neonatal mortality in low-and middle-income countries: an analysis of data from population surveillance sites in India, Nepal and Bangladesh. Int J Epidemiol. 2019;48(1):186–98.CrossRef Houweling TA, et al. A prediction model for neonatal mortality in low-and middle-income countries: an analysis of data from population surveillance sites in India, Nepal and Bangladesh. Int J Epidemiol. 2019;48(1):186–98.CrossRef
40.
go back to reference Dorling J, Field D, Manktelow B. Neonatal disease severity scoring systems. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2005;90(1):F11–6.CrossRef Dorling J, Field D, Manktelow B. Neonatal disease severity scoring systems. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2005;90(1):F11–6.CrossRef
41.
go back to reference Aluvaala J, Collins GS, Maina B, et al. Competing risk survival analysis of time to in-hospital death or discharge in a large urban neonatal unit in Kenya. Wellcome Open Res. 2019;4:96. Aluvaala J, Collins GS, Maina B, et al. Competing risk survival analysis of time to in-hospital death or discharge in a large urban neonatal unit in Kenya. Wellcome Open Res. 2019;4:96.
Metadata
Title
External validation of inpatient neonatal mortality prediction models in high-mortality settings
Authors
Timothy Tuti
Gary Collins
Mike English
Jalemba Aluvaala
on behalf of the Clinical Information Network
Publication date
01-12-2022
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medicine / Issue 1/2022
Electronic ISSN: 1741-7015
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-022-02439-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

BMC Medicine 1/2022 Go to the issue