PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Evgueni Jacob AU - Angélique Perrillat-Mercerot AU - Jean-Louis Palgen AU - Adèle L’Hostis AU - Nicoletta Ceres AU - Jean-Pierre Boissel AU - Jim Bosley AU - Claudio Monteiro AU - Riad Kahoul TI - Empirical methods for the validation of Time-To-Event mathematical models taking into account uncertainty and variability: Application to EGFR+ Lung Adenocarcinoma AID - 10.1101/2022.09.08.507079 DP - 2023 Jan 01 TA - bioRxiv PG - 2022.09.08.507079 4099 - http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2023/01/24/2022.09.08.507079.short 4100 - http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2023/01/24/2022.09.08.507079.full AB - Over the past several decades, metrics have been defined to assess the quality of various types of models and to compare their performance depending on their capacity to explain the variance found in real-life data. However, available validation methods are mostly designed for statistical regressions rather than for mechanistic models. To our knowledge, in the latter case, there are no consensus standards, for instance for the validation of predictions against real-world data given the variability and uncertainty of the data. In this work, we focus on the prediction of time-to-event curves using as an application example a mechanistic model of non-small cell lung cancer. We designed four empirical methods to assess both model performance and reliability of predictions: two methods based on bootstrapped versions of parametric statistical tests: log-rank and combined weighted log-ranks (MaxCombo); and two methods based on bootstrapped prediction intervals, referred to here as raw coverage and the juncture metric. We also introduced the notion of observation time uncertainty to take into consideration the real life delay between the moment when an event happens, and the moment when it is observed and reported. We highlight the advantages and disadvantages of these methods according to their application context. With this work, we stress the importance of making judicious choices for a metric with the objective of validating a given model and its predictions within a specific context of use. We also show how the reliability of the results depends both on the metric and on the statistical comparisons, and that the conditions of application and the type of available information need to be taken into account to choose the best validation strategy.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.