Literature DB >> 14744831

Quantifying and comparing the predictive accuracy of continuous prognostic factors for binary outcomes.

Chaya S Moskowitz1, Margaret S Pepe.   

Abstract

The positive and negative predictive values are standard ways of quantifying predictive accuracy when both the outcome and the prognostic factor are binary. Methods for comparing the predictive values of two or more binary factors have been discussed previously (Leisenring et al., 2000, Biometrics 56, 345-351). We propose extending the standard definitions of the predictive values to accommodate prognostic factors that are measured on a continuous scale and suggest a corresponding graphical method to summarize predictive accuracy. Drawing on the work of Leisenring et al. we make use of a marginal regression framework and discuss methods for estimating these predictive value functions and their differences within this framework. The methods presented in this paper have the potential to be useful in a number of areas including the design of clinical trials and health policy analysis.

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14744831     DOI: 10.1093/biostatistics/5.1.113

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biostatistics        ISSN: 1465-4644            Impact factor:   5.899


  19 in total

1.  Estimating the diagnostic likelihood ratio of a continuous marker.

Authors:  Wen Gu; Margaret Sullivan Pepe
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2010-07-16       Impact factor: 5.899

2.  Evaluating the predictiveness of a continuous marker.

Authors:  Ying Huang; Margaret Sullivan Pepe; Ziding Feng
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2007-05-08       Impact factor: 2.571

3.  Predictive accuracy of covariates for event times.

Authors:  Li Chen; D Y Lin; Donglin Zeng
Journal:  Biometrika       Date:  2012-04-29       Impact factor: 2.445

4.  A threshold-free summary index of prediction accuracy for censored time to event data.

Authors:  Yan Yuan; Qian M Zhou; Bingying Li; Hengrui Cai; Eric J Chow; Gregory T Armstrong
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2018-02-08       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  Germline genetic variation and treatment response on CCG-1891.

Authors:  Dana M Sepe; Thomas McWilliams; Jinbo Chen; Aaron Kershenbaum; Huaqing Zhao; Mei La; Meenakshi Devidas; Beverly Lange; Timothy R Rebbeck; Richard Aplenc
Journal:  Pediatr Blood Cancer       Date:  2011-05-25       Impact factor: 3.167

6.  EFFECTIVELY SELECTING A TARGET POPULATION FOR A FUTURE COMPARATIVE STUDY.

Authors:  Lihui Zhao; Lu Tian; Tianxi Cai; Brian Claggett; L J Wei
Journal:  J Am Stat Assoc       Date:  2013-01-01       Impact factor: 5.033

7.  Conditional estimation after a two-stage diagnostic biomarker study that allows early termination for futility.

Authors:  Joseph S Koopmeiners; Ziding Feng; Margaret Sullivan Pepe
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2012-01-12       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 8.  Validation of biomarker-based risk prediction models.

Authors:  Jeremy M G Taylor; Donna P Ankerst; Rebecca R Andridge
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2008-10-01       Impact factor: 12.531

9.  Semiparametric models of time-dependent predictive values of prognostic biomarkers.

Authors:  Yingye Zheng; Tianxi Cai; Janet L Stanford; Ziding Feng
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2009-04-13       Impact factor: 2.571

10.  Time-dependent Predictive Values of Prognostic Biomarkers with Failure Time Outcome.

Authors:  Yingye Zheng; Tianxi Cai; Margaret S Pepe; Wayne C Levy
Journal:  J Am Stat Assoc       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 5.033

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.