TY - JOUR
T1 - Minimum sample size for developing a multivariable prediction model
T2 - PART II - binary and time-to-event outcomes
AU - Riley, Richard D.
AU - Snell, Kym I.E.
AU - Ensor, Joie
AU - Burke, Danielle L.
AU - Harrell, Frank E.
AU - Moons, Karel G.M.
AU - Collins, Gary S.
N1 - Funding Information:
We wish to thank two reviewers and the Associate Editor for their constructive comments which helped improve the article upon revision. Danielle Burke and Kym Snell are funded by the National Institute for Health Research School for Primary Care Research (NIHR SPCR). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health. Karel G.M. Moons receives funding from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (project 9120.8004 and 918.10.615). Frank Harrell's work on this paper was supported by CTSA (award UL1 TR002243) from the National Centre for Advancing Translational Sciences. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent official views of the National Centre for Advancing Translational Sciences or the US National Institutes of Health. Gary Collins was supported by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford.
Funding Information:
the NIHR, or the Department of Health. Karel G.M. Moons receives funding from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (project 9120.8004 and 918.10.615). Frank Harrell's work on this paper was supported by CTSA (award UL1 TR002243) from the National Centre for Advancing Translational Sciences. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent official views of the National Centre for Advancing Translational Sciences or the US National Institutes of Health. Gary Collins was supported by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford.
Funding Information:
We wish to thank two reviewers and the Associate Editor for their constructive comments which helped improve the article upon revision. Danielle Burke and Kym Snell are funded by the National Institute for Health Research School for Primary Care Research (NIHR SPCR). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS,
Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
PY - 2019/3/30
Y1 - 2019/3/30
N2 - When designing a study to develop a new prediction model with binary or time-to-event outcomes, researchers should ensure their sample size is adequate in terms of the number of participants (n) and outcome events (E) relative to the number of predictor parameters (p) considered for inclusion. We propose that the minimum values of n and E (and subsequently the minimum number of events per predictor parameter, EPP) should be calculated to meet the following three criteria: (i) small optimism in predictor effect estimates as defined by a global shrinkage factor of ≥0.9, (ii) small absolute difference of ≤ 0.05 in the model's apparent and adjusted Nagelkerke's R2, and (iii) precise estimation of the overall risk in the population. Criteria (i) and (ii) aim to reduce overfitting conditional on a chosen p, and require prespecification of the model's anticipated Cox-Snell R2, which we show can be obtained from previous studies. The values of n and E that meet all three criteria provides the minimum sample size required for model development. Upon application of our approach, a new diagnostic model for Chagas disease requires an EPP of at least 4.8 and a new prognostic model for recurrent venous thromboembolism requires an EPP of at least 23. This reinforces why rules of thumb (eg, 10 EPP) should be avoided. Researchers might additionally ensure the sample size gives precise estimates of key predictor effects; this is especially important when key categorical predictors have few events in some categories, as this may substantially increase the numbers required.
AB - When designing a study to develop a new prediction model with binary or time-to-event outcomes, researchers should ensure their sample size is adequate in terms of the number of participants (n) and outcome events (E) relative to the number of predictor parameters (p) considered for inclusion. We propose that the minimum values of n and E (and subsequently the minimum number of events per predictor parameter, EPP) should be calculated to meet the following three criteria: (i) small optimism in predictor effect estimates as defined by a global shrinkage factor of ≥0.9, (ii) small absolute difference of ≤ 0.05 in the model's apparent and adjusted Nagelkerke's R2, and (iii) precise estimation of the overall risk in the population. Criteria (i) and (ii) aim to reduce overfitting conditional on a chosen p, and require prespecification of the model's anticipated Cox-Snell R2, which we show can be obtained from previous studies. The values of n and E that meet all three criteria provides the minimum sample size required for model development. Upon application of our approach, a new diagnostic model for Chagas disease requires an EPP of at least 4.8 and a new prognostic model for recurrent venous thromboembolism requires an EPP of at least 23. This reinforces why rules of thumb (eg, 10 EPP) should be avoided. Researchers might additionally ensure the sample size gives precise estimates of key predictor effects; this is especially important when key categorical predictors have few events in some categories, as this may substantially increase the numbers required.
KW - binary and time-to-event outcomes
KW - logistic and Cox regression
KW - multivariable prediction model
KW - pseudo R-squared
KW - sample size
KW - shrinkage
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85055292302&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/sim.7992
DO - 10.1002/sim.7992
M3 - Article
C2 - 30357870
AN - SCOPUS:85055292302
SN - 0277-6715
VL - 38
SP - 1276
EP - 1296
JO - Statistics in Medicine
JF - Statistics in Medicine
IS - 7
ER -