arXiv · 2607.03676
A repeated k-fold cross-validation approach for evaluating the instability of clinical prediction models: an empirical comparison to the bootstrap approach
Abstract
Bootstrap-based methods have been recommended for assessing prediction instability in clinical prediction models, but their performance relative to cross-validation (CV) remains unclear. We propose a CV-based approach for assessing prediction instability and compare it with a bootstrap-based approach in logistic regression and random forest models. We conducted a resampling-based empirical experiment using a clinical cohort of 19,418 emergency department patients. Development samples were generated under events-per-variable (EPV) scenarios of 10, 30, and 50, and results were compared with those from the full dataset. Models were evaluated using bootstrap validation and repeated 5-fold CV; nested CV was used for random forest tuning. Predictive performance was assessed using AUC, calibration slope, and calibration-in-the-large. Prediction instability was quantified using mean absolute prediction error (MAPE). For logistic regression, bootstrap validation and repeated 5-fold CV produced broadly similar discrimination and calibration, especially at higher EPV values. For random forest, apparent performance consistently overestimated empirical discrimination. Bootstrap validation and repeated 5-fold CV gave comparable discrimination, but repeated 5-fold CV produced calibration slope estimates closer to the empirical value. Prediction stability improved as EPV increased for both modelling approaches. At EPV 30, bootstrap-derived MAPE was higher than CV-derived MAPE for both logistic regression (median, 0.042 versus 0.020) and random forest (median, 0.077 versus 0.027). A CV-based approach can assess prediction instability while also providing internally validated performance. These findings support CV-based instability assessment as a practical alternative to bootstrap-based assessment, particularly when comparing instability across multiple modelling algorithms.
Explore related subjects
Keep this discovery
Nop Khongthon, Pakpoom Wongyikul, Noraworn Jirattikanwong, Phanu Prasankittirach, Natthanaphop Isaradech, Wachiranun Sirikul, Noppadon Seesuwan, Suppachai Lawanaskol, Phichayut Phinyo. 2026-07-04. A repeated k-fold cross-validation approach for evaluating the instability of clinical prediction models: an empirical comparison to the bootstrap approach. https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.03676
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.