Literature DB >> 15800301

A new logistic regression approach for the evaluation of diagnostic test results.

A Cecile J W Janssens1, Yazhong Deng, Gerard J J M Borsboom, Marinus J C Eijkemans, J Dik F Habbema, Ewout W Steyerberg.   

Abstract

The value of a dichotomous diagnostic test is often described in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios (LRs). Although it is known that these test characteristics vary between subgroups of patients, they are generally interpreted, on average, without considering information on patient characteristics, such as clinical signs and symptoms, or on previous test results. This article presents a reformulation of the logistic regression model that allows to calculate the LRs of diagnostic test results conditional on these covariates. The proposed method starts with estimating logistic regression models for the prior and posterior odds of disease. The regression model for the prior odds is based on patient characteristics, whereas the regression model for the posterior odds also includes the diagnostic test of interest. Following the Bayes theorem, the authors demontsrate that the regression model for the LR can be derived from taking the differences between the regression coefficients of the 2 models. In a clinical example, they demonstrate that the LRs of positive and negative test results and the sensitivity and specificity of the diagnostic test varied considerably between patients with different risk profiles, even when a constant odds ratio was assumed. The proposed logistic regression approach proves an efficient method to determine the performance of tests at the level of the individual patient risk profile and to examine the effect of patient characteristics on diagnostic test characteristics.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15800301     DOI: 10.1177/0272989X05275154

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  20 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.  Role of Coronary Artery Calcium Score of Zero and Other Negative Risk Markers for Cardiovascular Disease: The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA).

Authors:  Michael J Blaha; Miguel Cainzos-Achirica; Philip Greenland; John W McEvoy; Ron Blankstein; Matthew J Budoff; Zeina Dardari; Christopher T Sibley; Gregory L Burke; Richard A Kronmal; Moyses Szklo; Roger S Blumenthal; Khurram Nasir
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2016-01-22       Impact factor: 29.690

3.  Estimating the capacity for improvement in risk prediction with a marker.

Authors:  Wen Gu; Margaret Sullivan Pepe
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2008-08-19       Impact factor: 5.899

4.  Semiparametric methods for evaluating the covariate-specific predictiveness of continuous markers in matched case-control studies.

Authors:  Y Huang; M S Pepe
Journal:  J R Stat Soc Ser C Appl Stat       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 1.864

5.  Testing for improvement in prediction model performance.

Authors:  Margaret Sullivan Pepe; Kathleen F Kerr; Gary Longton; Zheyu Wang
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2013-01-07       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  Joint modeling, covariate adjustment, and interaction: contrasting notions in risk prediction models and risk prediction performance.

Authors:  Kathleen F Kerr; Margaret S Pepe
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 4.822

7.  Updating risk prediction tools: a case study in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Donna P Ankerst; Tim Koniarski; Yuanyuan Liang; Robin J Leach; Ziding Feng; Martin G Sanda; Alan W Partin; Daniel W Chan; Jacob Kagan; Lori Sokoll; John T Wei; Ian M Thompson
Journal:  Biom J       Date:  2011-11-17       Impact factor: 2.207

8.  Comparison of approaches for incorporating new information into existing risk prediction models.

Authors:  Sonja Grill; Donna P Ankerst; Mitchell H Gail; Nilanjan Chatterjee; Ruth M Pfeiffer
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2016-12-11       Impact factor: 2.373

9.  Estimating improvement in prediction with matched case-control designs.

Authors:  Aasthaa Bansal; Margaret Sullivan Pepe
Journal:  Lifetime Data Anal       Date:  2013-01-29       Impact factor: 1.588

10.  Defining Diarrhea: A Population-Based Validation Study of Caregiver-Reported Stool Consistency in the Amhara Region of Ethiopia.

Authors:  Kristen Aiemjoy; Solomon Aragie; Sintayehu Gebresillasie; Dionna M Fry; Adane Dagnew; Dagnachew Hailu; Melsew Chanyalew; Zerihun Tadesse; Aisha Stewart; Kelly Callahan; Mathew Freeman; John Neuhaus; Benjamin F Arnold; Jeremy D Keenan
Journal:  Am J Trop Med Hyg       Date:  2018-02-22       Impact factor: 2.345

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.