Andrew J Vickers1, Elena B Elkin. 1. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA. vickersa@mskcc.org
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diagnostic and prognostic models are typically evaluated with measures of accuracy that do not address clinical consequences. Decision-analytic techniques allow assessment of clinical outcomes but often require collection of additional information and may be cumbersome to apply to models that yield a continuous result. The authors sought a method for evaluating and comparing prediction models that incorporates clinical consequences,requires only the data set on which the models are tested,and can be applied to models that have either continuous or dichotomous results. METHOD: The authors describe decision curve analysis, a simple, novel method of evaluating predictive models. They start by assuming that the threshold probability of a disease or event at which a patient would opt for treatment is informative of how the patient weighs the relative harms of a false-positive and a false-negative prediction. This theoretical relationship is then used to derive the net benefit of the model across different threshold probabilities. Plotting net benefit against threshold probability yields the "decision curve." The authors apply the method to models for the prediction of seminal vesicle invasion in prostate cancer patients. Decision curve analysis identified the range of threshold probabilities in which a model was of value, the magnitude of benefit, and which of several models was optimal. CONCLUSION: Decision curve analysis is a suitable method for evaluating alternative diagnostic and prognostic strategies that has advantages over other commonly used measures and techniques.
BACKGROUND: Diagnostic and prognostic models are typically evaluated with measures of accuracy that do not address clinical consequences. Decision-analytic techniques allow assessment of clinical outcomes but often require collection of additional information and may be cumbersome to apply to models that yield a continuous result. The authors sought a method for evaluating and comparing prediction models that incorporates clinical consequences,requires only the data set on which the models are tested,and can be applied to models that have either continuous or dichotomous results. METHOD: The authors describe decision curve analysis, a simple, novel method of evaluating predictive models. They start by assuming that the threshold probability of a disease or event at which a patient would opt for treatment is informative of how the patient weighs the relative harms of a false-positive and a false-negative prediction. This theoretical relationship is then used to derive the net benefit of the model across different threshold probabilities. Plotting net benefit against threshold probability yields the "decision curve." The authors apply the method to models for the prediction of seminal vesicle invasion in prostate cancerpatients. Decision curve analysis identified the range of threshold probabilities in which a model was of value, the magnitude of benefit, and which of several models was optimal. CONCLUSION: Decision curve analysis is a suitable method for evaluating alternative diagnostic and prognostic strategies that has advantages over other commonly used measures and techniques.
Authors: M S Pepe; R Etzioni; Z Feng; J D Potter; M L Thompson; M Thornquist; M Winget; Y Yasui Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2001-07-18 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Sylvie M C van Osch; Peter P Wakker; Wilbert B van den Hout; Anne M Stiggelbout Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2004 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Shiva K Das; Alan H Baydush; Sumin Zhou; Moyed Miften; Xiaoli Yu; Oana Craciunescu; Mark Oldham; Kim Light; Terence Wong; Michael Blazing; Salvador Borges-Neto; Mark W Dewhirst; Lawrence B Marks Journal: Med Phys Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: D J Hendriks; F J Broekmans; L F J M M Bancsi; C W N Looman; F H de Jong; E R te Velde Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 3.412
Authors: T Steuber; P I Karakiewicz; H Augustin; A Erbersdobler; I Lange; A Haese; K-H F Chun; J Walz; M Graefen; H Huland Journal: J Urol Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: K G Moons; T Stijnen; B C Michel; H R Büller; G A Van Es; D E Grobbee; J D Habbema Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 1997 Oct-Dec Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: David Tiberi; George Rodrigues; Tom Pickles; Jim Morris; Juanita Crook; Andre-Guy Martin; Fabio Cury; Charles Catton; Himu Lukka; Andrew Warner; Daniel Taussky Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2017 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: D J Lundon; B D Kelly; R Foley; S Loeb; J M Fitzpatrick; R W G Watson; E Rogers; G C Durkan; K Walsh Journal: World J Urol Date: 2014-08-05 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Andrew Vickers; Emily A Vertosick; Daniel D Sjoberg; Monique J Roobol; Freddie Hamdy; David Neal; Anders Bjartell; Jonas Hugosson; Jenny L Donovan; Arnauld Villers; Stephen Zappala; Hans Lilja Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-09-28 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Keith A Alfieri; Benjamin K Potter; Thomas A Davis; Matthew B Wagner; Eric A Elster; Jonathan A Forsberg Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 4.176