Robustifying and Selecting Cohort-Appropriate Prognostic Models under Distributional Shifts

Background: External validation is essential for assessing the transportability of predictive models. However, its interpretation is often confounded by differences between external and development populations. This study introduces a framework to distinguish model deficiencies from case-mix effects. Method: We propose a framework that quantifies each external patient's similarity to the development data and measures performance in subgroups with varying levels of alignment to the development distribution. We use generative models, specifically autoencoders, to estimate similarity, offering a more flexible alternative to traditional linear approaches and enabling validation without sharing the original development data. The utility of autoencoder-based similarity measure is demonstrated using synthetic data, and the framework's application is illustrated using data from the Netherlands Heart Registration (NHR) to predict mortality after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Results: Our framework revealed substantial variation in model performance across similarity-defined subgroups, differences that remain hidden under conventional external validation yet can meaningfully alter conclusions. In several settings, conventional external validation suggested poor overall performance. However, after accounting for differences in patient characteristics, for some sub-groups, the model performance was consistent with internal validation results. Conversely, apparently acceptable overall performance could mask clinically relevant performance deficits in specific subgroups. Conclusion: The proposed framework enhances the interpretability of external validation by linking model performance to population alignment with the development data. This provides a more principled basis for deciding whether a model is transportable and to which patients it can be safely applied.

Recent work has argued normatively, on synthetic data, that evaluating survival models by discrimination alone (concordance index) yields systematically misleading model comparisons, because the metric ignores calibration and time-dependent accuracy. Whether this matters for real, published, non-clinical models has not been tested. We reproduce three published survival-ML models across three structurally distinct domains -- hard-drive failure prediction, peer-to-peer credit default, and user disengagement on digital platforms -- validate our instrument against the anchor paper's own synthetic experiment, and test five pre-registered hypotheses under a Holm-corrected family-wise error rate. Three of five reject (though one pre-registered threshold clears by a narrow margin). A model reproducing the published literature's discrimination almost exactly (C = 0.9595 vs. 0.958 reported) fails a formal calibration test at p < 0.001; a broad feature-ablation search finds no single attribute responsible for its discrimination, so the calibration failure is not a trivial shortcut artifact. A lender's estimated default risk is biased upward by roughly two percentage points, growing to nearly four in the riskiest segment, when loan prepayment is treated as non-informative censoring rather than a competing risk. A platform's churn model shows probability estimates that degrade with the horizon even as global discrimination stays within the pre-registered C-index band. A direct test of whether metric choice inverts model preference does not reject, though with limited power given two to three models per domain; the failure mode we document is better characterized as misplaced confidence in a chosen model than as choosing the wrong one. We release a pre-registered evaluation harness with full code and an annotated notebook, so these results can be verified independently and the audit extended.

Deploying clinical prediction models across healthcare systems often fails when key training covariates are unavailable at deployment and labeled outcomes are limited in the target domain. For example, high-performing models for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) rely on detailed prehospital measurements routinely collected in high-resource settings but unavailable in many international registries. Existing methods either discard missing covariates, sacrificing predictive information, or rely on untestable assumptions about their target distribution. We propose DRUM (\underline{D}istributionally \underline{R}obust \underline{U}nsupervised transfer learning with structurally \underline{M}issing covariates), a framework that transfers prediction models to target populations where certain covariates are structurally absent and outcome labels are unavailable. DRUM partitions covariates into shared components ($X$), observed across all settings, and missing components ($A$), observed only in the source. Rather than imputing missing covariates, DRUM optimizes worst-case predictive performance over the unknown target distribution of $A \mid X$ using a neural network generator, with a robustness parameter controlling allowable deviation from the source conditional. We further develop a bias correction procedure that reduces sensitivity to nuisance estimation error. Simulations show substantial improvements in both mean and worst-case prediction error under distribution shift. Applied to cross-national OHCA prediction, transferring models from a US registry to multiple Asian registries where prehospital variables are unrecorded, DRUM yields better-calibrated predictions and improved clinical classification performance across sites.