Literature DB >> 17099194

Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models.

Andrew J Vickers1, Elena B Elkin.   

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17099194      PMCID: PMC2577036          DOI: 10.1177/0272989X06295361

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


  17 in total

Review 1.  Phases of biomarker development for early detection of cancer.

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

2.  Correcting biases in standard gamble and time tradeoff utilities.

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

Review 3.  The use of QALYs in health care decision making.

Authors:  G Loomes; L McKenzie
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 4.634

4.  Predicting radiotherapy-induced cardiac perfusion defects.

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

5.  Single and repeated GnRH agonist stimulation tests compared with basal markers of ovarian reserve in the prediction of outcome in IVF.

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

6.  The numerical measure of the success of predictions.

Authors:  C S Peirce
Journal:  Science       Date:  1884-11-14       Impact factor: 47.728

7.  Transition zone cancers undermine the predictive accuracy of Partin table stage predictions.

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

8.  Application of treatment thresholds to diagnostic-test evaluation: an alternative to the comparison of areas under receiver operating characteristic curves.

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

9.  A preoperative nomogram for disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer.

Authors:  M W Kattan; J A Eastham; A M Stapleton; T M Wheeler; P T Scardino
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1998-05-20       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  The threshold approach to clinical decision making.

Authors:  S G Pauker; J P Kassirer
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1980-05-15       Impact factor: 91.245

View more
  1196 in total

1.  Novel metrics for evaluating improvement in discrimination: net reclassification and integrated discrimination improvement for normal variables and nested models.

Authors:  Michael J Pencina; Ralph B D'Agostino; Olga V Demler
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2011-12-07       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  Gene signatures revisited.

Authors:  Stuart G Baker
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2012-01-18       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  External validation of the ProCaRS nomograms and comparison of existing risk-stratification tools for localized prostate cancer.

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

4.  Prostate cancer risk assessment tools in an unscreened population.

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

5.  Assessing the Clinical Impact of Risk Models for Opting Out of Treatment.

Authors:  Kathleen F Kerr; Marshall D Brown; Tracey L Marsh; Holly Janes
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2019-01-16       Impact factor: 2.583

6.  Bladder outlet obstruction in men with acute urinary retention: an urodynamic study.

Authors:  Maximilian Rom; Matthias Waldert; Hans Christoph Klingler; Tobias Klatte
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2013-01-17       Impact factor: 4.226

7.  Can A Multivariate Model for Survival Estimation in Skeletal Metastases (PATHFx) Be Externally Validated Using Japanese Patients?

Authors:  Koichi Ogura; Tabu Gokita; Yusuke Shinoda; Hirotaka Kawano; Tatsuya Takagi; Keisuke Ae; Akira Kawai; Rikard Wedin; Jonathan A Forsberg
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-05-30       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Prognostic Nomograms Stratify Survival of Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma Without Portal Vein Tumor Thrombosis After Curative Resection.

Authors:  Yi-Peng Fu; Yong Yi; Jin-Long Huang; Chu-Yu Jing; Jian Sun; Xiao-Chun Ni; Zhu-Feng Lu; Ya Cao; Jian Zhou; Jia Fan; Shuang-Jian Qiu
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2017-04-24

9.  Properties of the 4-Kallikrein Panel Outside the Diagnostic Gray Zone: Meta-Analysis of Patients with Positive Digital Rectal Examination or Prostate Specific Antigen 10 ng/ml and Above.

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

10.  Preventing Heterotopic Ossification in Combat Casualties-Which Models Are Best Suited for Clinical Use?

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.