arXiv subjects

Richard D. Riley

Publications and source records attributed to Richard D. Riley.

12 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Fairness Metrics based on the AUC in Clinical Predictive AI

Fairness evaluation of clinical prediction models for binary outcomes often involves fairness metrics that compare the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC, or c-statistic) across subgroups. However, the AUC has been shown to be a non-collapsible metric, meaning that its subgroup specific and overall values are not directly comparable as often implicitly assumed. This raises important questions about how existing AUC-based fairness metrics should be used and interpreted. We examine eight AUC-based fairness metrics proposed in the literature, including: within-group AUC parity; cross-group AUC (xAUC) parity; gap-to-overall AUC; equity-scaled AUC; minimum-based metrics; $\mathrm{xAUC}^1$; $\mathrm{xAUC}^0$; and $\mathrm{xAUC}^1$ or $\mathrm{xAUC}^0$ parity. We characterise their estimands, relate them to the decomposition of overall AUC (into within- and cross-group components), and critically appraise them. We then illustrate their behaviour using simulations based on the EuroSCORE II, a clinical prediction model for in-hospital mortality. We recommend reporting an AUC matrix, containing the overall AUC and all within- and cross-group AUC components, alongside population characteristics. When fairness metrics are needed, we recommend reporting the within-group AUC parity, with cross-group AUC parity providing supplementary information but requiring caution due to its potential conflict with calibration. Metrics involving $\mathrm{xAUC}^1$ and $\mathrm{xAUC}^0$ have merit, summarising within- and cross-group AUCs into single values, but their interpretation is non-trivial, and they should be used with caution. Gap-to-overall AUC, equity-scaled AUC, and minimum-based metrics compare quantities that should not be compared and it is unclear how to operationalise them, making them not fit for purpose and generally not recommended.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Evaluation of clinical prediction models: Decomposing performance uncertainty into model development and validation components

There has been growing emphasis on acknowledging, quantifying, and communicating the uncertainty inherent in the output of clinical prediction models. However, allowing for model uncertainty when assessing the performance of an existing model in a new sample (i.e., external validation) has not been sufficiently explored. When validating a model that generates uncertain predictions, the uncertainty of a given performance metric is affected by both model uncertainty and the finiteness of the validation sample (validation uncertainty). For a given performance metric, we show that the total uncertainty of the performance estimate can be decomposed into the uncertainty due to the model and the uncertainty due to the validation. Also, we propose $M^2$, the fraction of the total variance due to model uncertainty, and $V^2$, the fraction of the total variance due to validation uncertainty. These measures serve as complementary scalar indices that can be implemented for common performance metrics and visualizations such as calibration plots using simple Monte Carlo algorithms. Critically, our case study shows that with the same model and the same validation sample, the contribution of uncertainty sources is highly variable across performance metrics ($M^2$ varying from 12% for the Brier score to 78% for the calibration slope). This indicates that stakeholders who prioritize different aspects of performance (e.g., calibration versus clinical utility) might arrive at different decisions on whether future efforts should be directed towards creating a more reliable model or procuring a larger validation sample. In conclusion, external validation studies can readily be amended to incorporate model uncertainty, and we recommend that such studies report total variance as well as the relative share of variance components for all performance metrics.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

Estimating Stability of Individual-Specific Predictions from AI-based prediction models using Bootstrap and Cross-validation Resampling

Clinical prediction models are typically developed in a single finite dataset, which is one of many possible datasets that could have been collected. Applying the same model development procedure in another sample will provide different predictions for an individual. The degree to which an individual's prediction varies across development sets is referred to as prediction instability and is not captured by average performance measures. Resampling of the training data offers a practical way to assess instability, but its ability to do so accurately and reliably for different model choices is unclear. In a simulation study, we considered non-parametric, parametric, and out-of-bag bootstrap methods and repeated 10-, 5-, and 2-fold cross-validation (CV) to estimate metrics of prediction instability for Elastic Net logistic regression and Random Forest. The same metrics estimated in independent development samples provided the reference. We assessed individual-level prediction variance, empirical 95% range width, and mean absolute differences from the original prediction and true outcome probability. Instability increased in smaller development samples, was greater for Random Forest, and varied across the probability range. Repeated 5- and 10-fold CV underestimated prediction instability across scenarios. Default non-parametric bootstrap more closely approximated independent sampling for Elastic Net but often overestimated instability for Random Forest, as did parametric bootstrap. Out-of-bag bootstrap and repeated 2-fold CV generally agreed most closely with independent sampling, although no procedure was uniformly best. Resampling procedures should not be used interchangeably, nor should less variable predictions be taken as evidence of greater stability. To estimate prediction instability, prefer procedures that predict on held-out data and limit overlap between training resamples.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

Collapsibility of Performance Metrics in Clinical Predictive AI

Background: Population level assessments of predictive artificial intelligence (AI) can conceal performance disparities across subgroups. Fairness evaluations commonly rely on performance analyses across subgroups. However, some performance metrics are non-collapsible, meaning that the overall population performance value does not equal the weighted average of subgroup specific values. Objective: To examine the collapsibility properties of commonly reported performance metrics in predictive AI, with a focus on the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC, also known as c-statistic). Methods: We investigate the collapsibility of 15 performance metrics, either by expressing each metric as a linear combination of its stratum specific values or, where non-collapsible, by providing a counterexample inspired by Simpson's paradox as a formal disproof. Results: Five performance metrics (AUC, calibration intercept, calibration slope, expected calibration error, and Nagelkerke R^2) are shown to be non-collapsible, and ten (O:E ratio, logloss, Brier score, accuracy, F1-score, true positive rate, true negative rate, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and net benefit) are shown to be collapsible. The AUC is shown to be non-collapsible because it decomposes into within- and cross-group AUC terms when subpopulations coexist, such that its overall value may fall outside the range of subgroup specific AUCs. Conclusions: Non-collapsibility of performance metrics has important consequences for reporting, model appraisal, and fairness evaluation. It can generate spurious differences between subgroup and overall performance, which may mislead fairness evaluations. Explicitly acknowledging and reporting the collapsibility properties of performance metrics improves both the interpretability and transparency of fairness assessments.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Progression to the mean: A comparison of Bayesian clinical prediction models outputting the posterior mean versus conventional plug-in predictions

Clinical prediction models provide predictions for individuals, typically expressed as point estimates derived from a deterministic function, such as a logistic regression equation. Such 'plug-in' predictions hide inherent uncertainty. In contrast, Bayesian methods offer a coherent mechanism for uncertainty propagation, and allow the computation of the posterior mean as the measure of centrality of choice for clinical decision-making. However, Bayesian methods are not widely utilised in predictive analytics for healthcare. We investigated the feasibility and performance of a Bayesian adaptation of the commonly used frequentist framework for risk prediction modelling. We assessed (i) the use of shrinkage priors with complementary features (simplicity, user input, and automatic shrinkage) that enable Laplace/normal approximation of the posterior, and (ii) exact and approximate methods for efficient computation of the posterior mean. Using examples and simulations, we demonstrate that this Bayesian approach is feasible and improves predictive performance, while enabling uncertainty quantification with suitable coverage. In small-to-medium sample sizes, the gain in clinical utility by using the posterior mean over plug-in predictions was equivalent to the gain from using a noticeably larger sample size. Adapting the widely used parametric regression methods to an approximate Bayesian framework for prediction modelling is both pragmatic and clinically advantageous.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

Incorporating Missing Data Considerations into Sample Size Calculations for Developing Clinical Prediction Models

Clinical prediction models must be developed using sufficiently large datasets to minimise overfitting and ensure robust predictive performance. Existing sample size calculations assume complete predictor data for all included participants, yet missing values are common and may increase required sample sizes. This study aimed to quantify how missing predictor data and different imputation methods affect overfitting and model degradation, within datasets that adhere to current sample size criteria. We also aimed to explore how a general sample size framework based on anticipated posterior (sampling) distributions can be adapted to incorporate missing data assumptions and handling strategies. Using a simulation study, we found that in development data meeting current minimum sample size requirements, missing data reduced predictive performance, with expected calibration slopes frequently falling below the targeted value of 0.9. Increasing the required sample size to account for missing data reduced overfitting concerns, but the necessary inflation factor was context specific. In some scenarios, up to twice the minimum sample size was needed to achieve performance comparable to models developed using fully observed data. Expected value of perfect information calculations allowed quantification of the expected loss due to finite samples and missingness. Through two applied examples, we illustrate how embedding missing data assumptions and handling within the posterior sampling approach provides a principled way to determine required minimum sample sizes under missing data. Overall, missing predictor data increases minimum sample size requirements to develop stable and well-calibrated models. Our adaptations to recent posterior (sampling) sample size calculations offer a practical approach for incorporating missing data directly into sample size calculations.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

Compatibility of Missing Data Handling Methods across the Stages of Producing Clinical Prediction Models

Missing data is a challenge when developing, validating and deploying clinical prediction models (CPMs). Traditionally, decisions concerning missing data handling during CPM development and validation havent accounted for whether missingness is allowed at deployment. We hypothesised that the missing data approach used during model development should optimise model performance upon deployment, whilst the approach used during model validation should yield unbiased predictive performance estimates upon deployment; we term this compatibility. We aimed to determine which combinations of missing data handling methods across the CPM life cycle are compatible. We considered scenarios where CPMs are intended to be deployed with missing data allowed or not, and we evaluated the impact of that choice on earlier modelling decisions. Through a simulation study and an empirical analysis of thoracic surgery data, we compared CPMs developed and validated using combinations of complete case analysis, mean imputation, single regression imputation, multiple imputation, and pattern sub-modelling. If planning to deploy a CPM without allowing missing data, then development and validation should use multiple imputation when required. Where missingness is allowed at deployment, the same imputation method must be used during development and validation. Commonly used combinations of missing data handling methods result in biased predictive performance estimates.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2025

Sequential sample size calculations and learning curves safeguard the robust development of a clinical prediction model for individuals

When prospectively developing a new clinical prediction model (CPM), fixed sample size calculations are typically conducted before data collection based on sensible assumptions. But if the assumptions are inaccurate the actual sample size required to develop a reliable model may be very different. To safeguard against this, adaptive sample size approaches have been proposed, based on sequential evaluation of a models predictive performance. Aim: illustrate and extend sequential sample size calculations for CPM development by (i) proposing stopping rules based on minimising uncertainty (instability) and misclassification of individual-level predictions, and (ii) showcasing how it safeguards against inaccurate fixed sample size calculations. Using the sequential approach repeats the pre-defined model development strategy every time a chosen number (e.g., 100) of participants are recruited and adequately followed up. At each stage, CPM performance is evaluated using bootstrapping, leading to prediction and classification stability statistics and plots, alongside optimism-adjusted measures of calibration and discrimination. Our approach is illustrated for development of acute kidney injury using logistic regression CPMs. The fixed sample size calculation, based on perceived sensible assumptions suggests recruiting 342 patients to minimise overfitting; however, the sequential approach reveals that a much larger sample size of 1100 is required to minimise overfitting (targeting population-level stability). If the stopping rule criteria also target small uncertainty and misclassification probability of individual predictions, the sequential approach suggests an even larger sample size (n=1800). Our sequential sample size approach allows users to dynamically monitor individual-level prediction and classification instability and safeguard against using inaccurate assumptions.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2025

Critical Appraisal of Fairness Metrics in Clinical Predictive AI

Predictive artificial intelligence (AI) offers an opportunity to improve clinical practice and patient outcomes, but risks perpetuating biases if fairness is inadequately addressed. However, the definition of "fairness" remains unclear. We conducted a scoping review to identify and critically appraise fairness metrics for clinical predictive AI. We defined a "fairness metric" as a measure quantifying whether a model discriminates (societally) against individuals or groups defined by sensitive attributes. We searched five databases (2014-2024), screening 820 records, to include 41 studies, and extracted 62 fairness metrics. Metrics were classified by performance-dependency, model output level, and base performance metric, revealing a fragmented landscape with limited clinical validation and overreliance on threshold-dependent measures. Eighteen metrics were explicitly developed for healthcare, including only one clinical utility metric. Our findings highlight conceptual challenges in defining and quantifying fairness and identify gaps in uncertainty quantification, intersectionality, and real-world applicability. Future work should prioritise clinically meaningful metrics.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

Extended sample size calculations for evaluation of prediction models using a threshold for classification

When evaluating the performance of a model for individualised risk prediction, the sample size needs to be large enough to precisely estimate the performance measures of interest. Current sample size guidance is based on precisely estimating calibration, discrimination, and net benefit, which should be the first stage of calculating the minimum required sample size. However, when a clinically important threshold is used for classification, other performance measures can also be used. We extend the previously published guidance to precisely estimate threshold-based performance measures. We have developed closed-form solutions to estimate the sample size required to target sufficiently precise estimates of accuracy, specificity, sensitivity, PPV, NPV, and F1-score in an external evaluation study of a prediction model with a binary outcome. This approach requires the user to pre-specify the target standard error and the expected value for each performance measure. We describe how the sample size formulae were derived and demonstrate their use in an example. Extension to time-to-event outcomes is also considered. In our examples, the minimum sample size required was lower than that required to precisely estimate the calibration slope, and we expect this would most often be the case. Our formulae, along with corresponding Python code and updated R and Stata commands (pmvalsampsize), enable researchers to calculate the minimum sample size needed to precisely estimate threshold-based performance measures in an external evaluation study. These criteria should be used alongside previously published criteria to precisely estimate the calibration, discrimination, and net-benefit.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2023

Calibration plots for multistate risk predictions models: an overview and simulation comparing novel approaches

Introduction. There is currently no guidance on how to assess the calibration of multistate models used for risk prediction. We introduce several techniques that can be used to produce calibration plots for the transition probabilities of a multistate model, before assessing their performance in the presence of non-informative and informative censoring through a simulation. Methods. We studied pseudo-values based on the Aalen-Johansen estimator, binary logistic regression with inverse probability of censoring weights (BLR-IPCW), and multinomial logistic regression with inverse probability of censoring weights (MLR-IPCW). The MLR-IPCW approach results in a calibration scatter plot, providing extra insight about the calibration. We simulated data with varying levels of censoring and evaluated the ability of each method to estimate the calibration curve for a set of predicted transition probabilities. We also developed evaluated the calibration of a model predicting the incidence of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease among a cohort of patients derived from linked primary and secondary healthcare records. Results. The pseudo-value, BLR-IPCW and MLR-IPCW approaches give unbiased estimates of the calibration curves under non-informative censoring. These methods remained unbiased in the presence of informative censoring, unless the mechanism was strongly informative, with bias concentrated in the areas of predicted transition probabilities of low density. Conclusions. We recommend implementing either the pseudo-value or BLR-IPCW approaches to produce a calibration curve, combined with the MLR-IPCW approach to produce a calibration scatter plot, which provides additional information over either of the other methods.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2020

Clinical Prediction Models to Predict the Risk of Multiple Binary Outcomes: a comparison of approaches

Clinical prediction models (CPMs) are used to predict clinically relevant outcomes or events. Typically, prognostic CPMs are derived to predict the risk of a single future outcome. However, with rising emphasis on the prediction of multi-morbidity, there is growing need for CPMs to simultaneously predict risks for each of multiple future outcomes. A common approach to multi-outcome risk prediction is to derive a CPM for each outcome separately, then multiply the predicted risks. This approach is only valid if the outcomes are conditionally independent given the covariates, and it fails to exploit the potential relationships between the outcomes. This paper outlines several approaches that could be used to develop prognostic CPMs for multiple outcomes. We consider four methods, ranging in complexity and assumed conditional independence assumptions: namely, probabilistic classifier chain, multinomial logistic regression, multivariate logistic regression, and a Bayesian probit model. These are compared with methods that rely on conditional independence: separate univariate CPMs and stacked regression. Employing a simulation study and real-world example via the MIMIC-III database, we illustrate that CPMs for joint risk prediction of multiple outcomes should only be derived using methods that model the residual correlation between outcomes. In such a situation, our results suggest that probabilistic classification chains, multinomial logistic regression or the Bayesian probit model are all appropriate choices. We call into question the development of CPMs for each outcome in isolation when multiple correlated or structurally related outcomes are of interest and recommend more holistic risk prediction.

stat.ME↗