Abstract

BackgroundThe assessment of calibration performance of risk prediction models based on regression or more flexible machine learning algorithms receives little attention.Main textHerein, we argue that this needs to change immediately because poorly calibrated algorithms can be misleading and potentially harmful for clinical decision-making. We summarize how to avoid poor calibration at algorithm development and how to assess calibration at algorithm validation, emphasizing balance between model complexity and the available sample size. At external validation, calibration curves require sufficiently large samples. Algorithm updating should be considered for appropriate support of clinical practice.ConclusionEfforts are required to avoid poor calibration when developing prediction models, to evaluate calibration when validating models, and to update models when indicated. The ultimate aim is to optimize the utility of predictive analytics for shared decision-making and patient counseling.

Keywords

CalibrationMachine learningMedicinePredictive analyticsHeelAnalyticsArtificial intelligenceComputer sciencePredictive modellingData miningStatistics

MeSH Terms

AdultAgedAlgorithmsCalibrationHumansMachine LearningMaleMiddle AgedPredictive Value of Tests

Affiliated Institutions

Related Publications

Publication Info

Year
2019
Type
article
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
230-230
Citations
1449
Access
Closed

Social Impact

Social media, news, blog, policy document mentions

Citation Metrics

1449
OpenAlex
26
Influential

Cite This

Ben Van Calster, David J. McLernon, Maarten van Smeden et al. (2019). Calibration: the Achilles heel of predictive analytics. BMC Medicine , 17 (1) , 230-230. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-019-1466-7

Identifiers

DOI
10.1186/s12916-019-1466-7
PMID
31842878
PMCID
PMC6912996

Data Quality

Data completeness: 90%