OBJECTIVE: To evaluate several methods of predicting prostate cancer-related outcomes, i.e. nomograms, look-up tables, artificial neural networks (ANN), classification and regression tree (CART) analyses and risk-group stratification (RGS) models, all of which represent valid alternatives. METHODS: We present four direct comparisons, where a nomogram was compared to either an ANN, a look-up table, a CART model or a RGS model. In all comparisons we assessed the predictive accuracy and performance characteristics of both models. RESULTS: Nomograms have several advantages over ANN, look-up tables, CART and RGS models, the most fundamental being a higher predictive accuracy and better performance characteristics. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that nomograms are more accurate and have better performance characteristics than their alternatives. However, ANN, look-up tables, CART analyses and RGS models all rely on methodologically sound and valid alternatives, which should not be abandoned.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate several methods of predicting prostate cancer-related outcomes, i.e. nomograms, look-up tables, artificial neural networks (ANN), classification and regression tree (CART) analyses and risk-group stratification (RGS) models, all of which represent valid alternatives. METHODS: We present four direct comparisons, where a nomogram was compared to either an ANN, a look-up table, a CART model or a RGS model. In all comparisons we assessed the predictive accuracy and performance characteristics of both models. RESULTS: Nomograms have several advantages over ANN, look-up tables, CART and RGS models, the most fundamental being a higher predictive accuracy and better performance characteristics. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that nomograms are more accurate and have better performance characteristics than their alternatives. However, ANN, look-up tables, CART analyses and RGS models all rely on methodologically sound and valid alternatives, which should not be abandoned.
Authors: Giovanni Lughezzani; Alberto Briganti; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Michael W Kattan; Francesco Montorsi; Shahrokh F Shariat; Andrew J Vickers Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-08-06 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Shahrokh F Shariat; Michael W Kattan; Andrew J Vickers; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Peter T Scardino Journal: Future Oncol Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 3.404
Authors: Ryan K Berglund; Andrew J Stephenson; Angel M Cronin; Andrew J Vickers; James A Eastham; Eric A Klein; Bertrand D Guillonneau Journal: Urology Date: 2009-03-17 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Dan Theodorescu; Eric Schiffer; Hartwig W Bauer; Friedrich Douwes; Frank Eichhorn; Reinhard Polley; Thomas Schmidt; Wolfgang Schöfer; Petra Zürbig; David M Good; Joshua J Coon; Harald Mischak Journal: Proteomics Clin Appl Date: 2008-03-07 Impact factor: 3.494