Table 4

Predictive performance of developed birth weight model with average intercept in each internal-external cross validation cycle. UK (Allen et al, 2017),32 Australia (Rumbold et al, 2006),31 and Norway (STORK Groruddalen research programme, 2010)33 cohorts, and pooled estimate

Pooled estimateAllen et al, 2017Rumbold et al, 2006STORK Groruddalen, 2010
No of pregnancies for model development236 183235 351236 405
No of pregnancies for external validation10451877823
Calibration slope
 Point estimate1.000.901.071.04
 Confidence interval0.78 to 1.230.82 to 0.971.02 to 1.120.96 to 1.12
 Prediction interval−0.25 to 2.26
 τ2 (95% CI)0.01 (0.00 to 0.14)
Calibration-in-the-large (g)
 Point estimate9.72−22.32−33.4286.41
 Confidence interval−154.3 to 173.8−48.36 to 3.7−53.4 to −13.557.3 to 115.5
 Prediction interval−943.23 to 962.67
 τ2 (95% CI)4200 (801 to 76000)
Observed to expected birth weight ratio
 Point estimate1.001.000.991.03
 Confidence interval0.94 to 1.070.95 to 1.040.94 to 1.050.97 to 1.09
 Prediction interval0.81 to 1.20
 τ2 (95% CI)0.00 (0.00 to 0.01)
R2* (%)
 Median45.732.647.445.7
 Range32.2-47.832.2-32.847.1-47.845.0-46.2
 interquartile range32.7-47.432.5-32.747.4-47.545.5-45.8
  • *Reported as median, range, and interquartile range for imputations because R2 cannot be summarised for all imputations with Rubin’s rules.

  • CI, confidence interval.