Making predictions under interventions: a case study from the PREDICT-CVD cohort in New Zealand primary care.
cardiovascular diseases
causal inference
clinical prediction model
prevention
treatment
Journal
Frontiers in epidemiology
ISSN: 2674-1199
Titre abrégé: Front Epidemiol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 9918419158106676
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2024
2024
Historique:
received:
23
10
2023
accepted:
11
03
2024
medline:
18
4
2024
pubmed:
18
4
2024
entrez:
18
4
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Most existing clinical prediction models do not allow predictions under interventions. Such predictions allow predicted risk under different proposed strategies to be compared and are therefore useful to support clinical decision making. We aimed to compare methodological approaches for predicting individual level cardiovascular risk under three interventions: smoking cessation, reducing blood pressure, and reducing cholesterol. We used data from the PREDICT prospective cohort study in New Zealand to calculate cardiovascular risk in a primary care setting. We compared three strategies to estimate absolute risk under intervention: (a) conditioning on hypothetical interventions in non-causal models; (b) combining existing prediction models with causal effects estimated using observational causal inference methods; and (c) combining existing prediction models with causal effects reported in published literature. The median absolute cardiovascular risk among smokers was 3.9%; our approaches predicted that smoking cessation reduced this to a median between a non-causal estimate of 2.5% and a causal estimate of 2.8%, depending on estimation methods. For reducing blood pressure, the proposed approaches estimated a reduction of absolute risk from a median of 4.9% to a median between 3.2% and 4.5% (both derived from causal estimation). Reducing cholesterol was estimated to reduce median absolute risk from 3.1% to between 2.2% (non-causal estimate) and 2.8% (causal estimate). Estimated absolute risk reductions based on non-causal methods were different to those based on causal methods, and there was substantial variation in estimates within the causal methods. Researchers wishing to estimate risk under intervention should be explicit about their causal modelling assumptions and conduct sensitivity analysis by considering a range of possible approaches.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Most existing clinical prediction models do not allow predictions under interventions. Such predictions allow predicted risk under different proposed strategies to be compared and are therefore useful to support clinical decision making. We aimed to compare methodological approaches for predicting individual level cardiovascular risk under three interventions: smoking cessation, reducing blood pressure, and reducing cholesterol.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
We used data from the PREDICT prospective cohort study in New Zealand to calculate cardiovascular risk in a primary care setting. We compared three strategies to estimate absolute risk under intervention: (a) conditioning on hypothetical interventions in non-causal models; (b) combining existing prediction models with causal effects estimated using observational causal inference methods; and (c) combining existing prediction models with causal effects reported in published literature.
Results
UNASSIGNED
The median absolute cardiovascular risk among smokers was 3.9%; our approaches predicted that smoking cessation reduced this to a median between a non-causal estimate of 2.5% and a causal estimate of 2.8%, depending on estimation methods. For reducing blood pressure, the proposed approaches estimated a reduction of absolute risk from a median of 4.9% to a median between 3.2% and 4.5% (both derived from causal estimation). Reducing cholesterol was estimated to reduce median absolute risk from 3.1% to between 2.2% (non-causal estimate) and 2.8% (causal estimate).
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
Estimated absolute risk reductions based on non-causal methods were different to those based on causal methods, and there was substantial variation in estimates within the causal methods. Researchers wishing to estimate risk under intervention should be explicit about their causal modelling assumptions and conduct sensitivity analysis by considering a range of possible approaches.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38633209
doi: 10.3389/fepid.2024.1326306
pmc: PMC11021700
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1326306Informations de copyright
© 2024 Lin, Poppe, Wood, Martin, Peek and Sperrin.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.