RESUMEN
Clinical prediction models provide risks of health outcomes that can inform patients and support medical decisions. However, most models never make it to actual implementation in practice. A commonly heard reason for this lack of implementation is that prediction models are often not externally validated. While we generally encourage external validation, we argue that an external validation is often neither sufficient nor required as an essential step before implementation. As such, any available external validation should not be perceived as a license for model implementation. We clarify this argument by discussing 3 common misconceptions about external validation. We argue that there is not one type of recommended validation design, not always a necessity for external validation, and sometimes a need for multiple external validations. The insights from this paper can help readers to consider, design, interpret, and appreciate external validation studies.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To systematically evaluate the performance of COVID-19 prognostic models and scores for mortality risk in older populations across three health-care settings: hospitals, primary care, and nursing homes. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This retrospective external validation study included 14,092 older individuals of ≥70 years of age with a clinical or polymerase chain reaction-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis from March 2020 to December 2020. The six validation cohorts include three hospital-based (CliniCo, COVID-OLD, COVID-PREDICT), two primary care-based (Julius General Practitioners Network/Academisch network huisartsgeneeskunde/Network of Academic general Practitioners, PHARMO), and one nursing home cohort (YSIS) in the Netherlands. Based on a living systematic review of COVID-19 prediction models using Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool for quality and risk of bias assessment and considering predictor availability in validation cohorts, we selected six prognostic models predicting mortality risk in adults with COVID-19 infection (GAL-COVID-19 mortality, 4C Mortality Score, National Early Warning Score 2-extended model, Xie model, Wang clinical model, and CURB65 score). All six prognostic models were validated in the hospital cohorts and the GAL-COVID-19 mortality model was validated in all three healthcare settings. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality for hospitals and 28-day mortality for primary care and nursing home settings. Model performance was evaluated in each validation cohort separately in terms of discrimination, calibration, and decision curves. An intercept update was performed in models indicating miscalibration followed by predictive performance re-evaluation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: In-hospital mortality for hospitals and 28-day mortality for primary care and nursing home setting. RESULTS: All six prognostic models performed poorly and showed miscalibration in the older population cohorts. In the hospital settings, model performance ranged from calibration-in-the-large -1.45 to 7.46, calibration slopes 0.24-0.81, and C-statistic 0.55-0.71 with 4C Mortality Score performing as the most discriminative and well-calibrated model. Performance across health-care settings was similar for the GAL-COVID-19 model, with a calibration-in-the-large in the range of -2.35 to -0.15 indicating overestimation, calibration slopes of 0.24-0.81 indicating signs of overfitting, and C-statistic of 0.55-0.71. CONCLUSION: Our results show that most prognostic models for predicting mortality risk performed poorly in the older population with COVID-19, in each health-care setting: hospital, primary care, and nursing home settings. Insights into factors influencing predictive model performance in the older population are needed for pandemic preparedness and reliable prognostication of health-related outcomes in this demographic.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Casas de Salud , Atención Primaria de Salud , Humanos , COVID-19/mortalidad , COVID-19/diagnóstico , Casas de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Anciano , Atención Primaria de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Pronóstico , Masculino , Estudios Retrospectivos , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Femenino , Medición de Riesgo/métodos , Países Bajos/epidemiología , SARS-CoV-2 , Hospitales/estadística & datos numéricos , Hospitales/normasRESUMEN
Lifelong hippocampal neurogenesis is maintained by a pool of multipotent adult neural stem cells (aNSCs) residing in the subgranular zone of the dentate gyrus (DG). The mechanisms guiding transition of NSCs from the developmental to the adult state remain unclear. We show here, by using nestin-based reporter mice deficient for cyclin D2, that the aNSC pool is established through cyclin D2-dependent proliferation during the first two weeks of life. The absence of cyclin D2 does not affect normal development of the dentate gyrus until birth but prevents postnatal formation of radial glia-like aNSCs. Furthermore, retroviral fate mapping reveals that aNSCs are born on-site from precursors located in the dentate gyrus shortly after birth. Taken together, our data identify the critical time window and the spatial location of the precursor divisions that generate the persistent population of aNSCs and demonstrate the central role of cyclin D2 in this process.