Literature DB >> 17489968

Evaluating the predictiveness of a continuous marker.

Ying Huang1, Margaret Sullivan Pepe, Ziding Feng.   

Abstract

Consider a continuous marker for predicting a binary outcome. For example, the serum concentration of prostate specific antigen may be used to calculate the risk of finding prostate cancer in a biopsy. In this article, we argue that the predictive capacity of a marker has to do with the population distribution of risk given the marker and suggest a graphical tool, the predictiveness curve, that displays this distribution. The display provides a common meaningful scale for comparing markers that may not be comparable on their original scales. Some existing measures of predictiveness are shown to be summary indices derived from the predictiveness curve. We develop methods for making inference about the predictiveness curve, for making pointwise comparisons between two curves, and for evaluating covariate effects. Applications to risk prediction markers in cancer and cystic fibrosis are discussed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17489968      PMCID: PMC3059154          DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2007.00814.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biometrics        ISSN: 0006-341X            Impact factor:   2.571


  11 in total

1.  Detection network gives early cancer tests a push.

Authors:  B Vastag
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2000-05-17       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 2.  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

3.  Assessing prostate cancer risk: results from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial.

Authors:  Ian M Thompson; Donna Pauler Ankerst; Chen Chi; Phyllis J Goodman; Catherine M Tangen; M Scott Lucia; Ziding Feng; Howard L Parnes; Charles A Coltman
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2006-04-19       Impact factor: 13.506

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

Authors:  Chaya S Moskowitz; Margaret S Pepe
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 5.899

5.  On criteria for evaluating models of absolute risk.

Authors:  Mitchell H Gail; Ruth M Pfeiffer
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 5.899

6.  Explained variation for logistic regression.

Authors:  M Mittlböck; M Schemper
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1996-10-15       Impact factor: 2.373

7.  The evaluation of clinical predictions. A method and initial application.

Authors:  A R Shapiro
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1977-06-30       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Changes in the normal maximal expiratory flow-volume curve with growth and aging.

Authors:  R J Knudson; M D Lebowitz; C J Holberg; B Burrows
Journal:  Am Rev Respir Dis       Date:  1983-06

9.  Dietary fat and the risk of breast cancer.

Authors:  W C Willett; M J Stampfer; G A Colditz; B A Rosner; C H Hennekens; F E Speizer
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1987-01-01       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  Smoothing reference centile curves: the LMS method and penalized likelihood.

Authors:  T J Cole; P J Green
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1992-07       Impact factor: 2.373

View more
  50 in total

1.  Comparing biomarkers as principal surrogate endpoints.

Authors:  Ying Huang; Peter B Gilbert
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2011-04-22       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  Assessing risk prediction models in case-control studies using semiparametric and nonparametric methods.

Authors:  Ying Huang; Margaret Sullivan Pepe
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2010-06-15       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Spline-based models for predictiveness curves and surfaces.

Authors:  Debashis Ghosh; Michael Sabel
Journal:  Stat Interface       Date:  2010-01-01       Impact factor: 0.582

4.  Prediction of patient-specific risk and percentile cohort risk of pathological stage outcome using continuous prostate-specific antigen measurement, clinical stage and biopsy Gleason score.

Authors:  Ying Huang; Sumit Isharwal; Alexander Haese; Felix K H Chun; Danil V Makarov; Ziding Feng; Misop Han; Elizabeth Humphreys; Jonathan I Epstein; Alan W Partin; Robert W Veltri
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2010-09-28       Impact factor: 5.588

5.  Integrating the predictiveness of a marker with its performance as a classifier.

Authors:  Margaret S Pepe; Ziding Feng; Ying Huang; Gary Longton; Ross Prentice; Ian M Thompson; Yingye Zheng
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2007-11-02       Impact factor: 4.897

6.  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

7.  LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS WITH STANDARDIZED MARKERS.

Authors:  Ying Huang; Margaret S Pepe; Ziding Feng
Journal:  Ann Appl Stat       Date:  2013-09-01       Impact factor: 2.083

8.  Evaluating candidate principal surrogate endpoints.

Authors:  Peter B Gilbert; Michael G Hudgens
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2008-03-24       Impact factor: 2.571

9.  Problems with risk reclassification methods for evaluating prediction models.

Authors:  Margaret S Pepe
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2011-05-09       Impact factor: 4.897

10.  Measures to summarize and compare the predictive capacity of markers.

Authors:  Wen Gu; Margaret Pepe
Journal:  Int J Biostat       Date:  2009-10-01       Impact factor: 0.968

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.