Model Performance and Validation
Cross-source consensus on Model Performance and Validation from 1 sources and 5 claims.
1 sources · 5 claims
Evidence quality
Highlighted claims
- Calibration was rarely assessed, with only one of ten prediction models reporting calibration methods and results. — Systematic review of prediction models and meta-analysis of risk factors for invasive fungal infection in children
- Only one model used internal validation and only one model underwent external validation. — Systematic review of prediction models and meta-analysis of risk factors for invasive fungal infection in children
- The included prediction models reported AUROC values from 0.76 to 0.95, indicating apparently good discrimination. — Systematic review of prediction models and meta-analysis of risk factors for invasive fungal infection in children
- The review did not meta-analyse AUROC because the included studies were heterogeneous across patients, sources, departments, settings, and regions. — Systematic review of prediction models and meta-analysis of risk factors for invasive fungal infection in children
- The externally validated scoring system had a validation sensitivity of 75.0% and specificity of 98.1%. — Systematic review of prediction models and meta-analysis of risk factors for invasive fungal infection in children