Literature DB >> 17982157

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

Margaret S Pepe1, Ziding Feng, Ying Huang, Gary Longton, Ross Prentice, Ian M Thompson, Yingye Zheng.   

Abstract

There are two popular statistical approaches to biomarker evaluation. One models the risk of disease (or disease outcome) with, for example, logistic regression. A marker is considered useful if it has a strong effect on risk. The second evaluates classification performance by use of measures such as sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and receiver operating characteristic curves. There is controversy about which approach is more appropriate. Moreover, the two approaches can give contradictory results on the same data. The authors present a new graphic, the predictiveness curve, which complements the risk modeling approach. It assesses the usefulness of a risk model when applied to the population. Although the predictiveness curve relates to classification performance measures, it also displays essential information about risk that is not displayed by the receiver operating characteristic curve. The authors propose that the predictiveness and classification performance of a marker, displayed together in an integrated plot, provide a comprehensive and cohesive assessment of a risk marker or model. The methods are demonstrated with data on prostate-specific antigen and risk factors from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial, 1993-2003.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17982157      PMCID: PMC2939738          DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwm305

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Epidemiol        ISSN: 0002-9262            Impact factor:   4.897


  16 in total

1.  Two goodness-of-fit tests for logistic regression models with continuous covariates.

Authors:  Erik Pulkstenis; Timothy J Robinson
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2002-01-15       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 2.  Sensitivity and specificity should be de-emphasized in diagnostic accuracy studies.

Authors:  Karel G M Moons; Frank E Harrell
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 3.173

3.  Combining several screening tests: optimality of the risk score.

Authors:  Martin W McIntosh; Margaret Sullivan Pepe
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 4.  Limitations of the odds ratio in gauging the performance of a diagnostic, prognostic, or screening marker.

Authors:  Margaret Sullivan Pepe; Holly Janes; Gary Longton; Wendy Leisenring; Polly Newcomb
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2004-05-01       Impact factor: 4.897

5.  Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: from area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond.

Authors:  Michael J Pencina; Ralph B D'Agostino; Ralph B D'Agostino; Ramachandran S Vasan
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2008-01-30       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  Explained variation for logistic regression.

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

7.  Testing the fit of a regression model via score tests in random effects models.

Authors:  S le Cessie; H C van Houwelingen
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 2.571

8.  A review of goodness of fit statistics for use in the development of logistic regression models.

Authors:  S Lemeshow; D W Hosmer
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1982-01       Impact factor: 4.897

9.  Variations in lung cancer risk among smokers.

Authors:  Peter B Bach; Michael W Kattan; Mark D Thornquist; Mark G Kris; Ramsey C Tate; Matt J Barnett; Lillian J Hsieh; Colin B Begg
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2003-03-19       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  Incremental value of the exercise test for diagnosing the presence or absence of coronary artery disease.

Authors:  L Goldman; E F Cook; N Mitchell; M Flatley; H Sherman; R Rosati; F Harrell; K Lee; P F Cohn
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  1982-11       Impact factor: 29.690

View more
  125 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.  Association between peritransplant kidney injury biomarkers and 1-year allograft outcomes.

Authors:  Isaac E Hall; Mona D Doshi; Peter P Reese; Richard J Marcus; Heather Thiessen-Philbrook; Chirag R Parikh
Journal:  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2012-06-21       Impact factor: 8.237

4.  Evaluation of a breast cancer risk prediction model expanded to include category of prior benign breast disease lesion.

Authors:  Rulla M Tamimi; Bernard Rosner; Graham A Colditz
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2010-11-01       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 5.  Analysis of biomarker data: logs, odds ratios, and receiver operating characteristic curves.

Authors:  Birgit Grund; Caroline Sabin
Journal:  Curr Opin HIV AIDS       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 4.283

6.  Simplified criteria for selecting patients for vertebral fracture assessment.

Authors:  Sharon H Chou; Tamara J Vokes; Siu-Ling Ma; Maureen Costello; Harold R Rosen; John T Schousboe
Journal:  J Clin Densitom       Date:  2014-02-25       Impact factor: 2.617

7.  Relationship between absolute and relative ratios of glutamate, glutamine and GABA and severity of autism spectrum disorder.

Authors:  Hanoof Al-Otaish; Laila Al-Ayadhi; Geir Bjørklund; Salvatore Chirumbolo; Mauricio A Urbina; Afaf El-Ansary
Journal:  Metab Brain Dis       Date:  2018-02-03       Impact factor: 3.584

8.  Assessing the performance of prediction models: a framework for traditional and novel measures.

Authors:  Ewout W Steyerberg; Andrew J Vickers; Nancy R Cook; Thomas Gerds; Mithat Gonen; Nancy Obuchowski; Michael J Pencina; Michael W Kattan
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 4.822

9.  Serious Falls in Middle-Aged Veterans: Development and Validation of a Predictive Risk Model.

Authors:  Julie A Womack; Terrence E Murphy; Harini Bathulapalli; Alexandria Smith; Jonathan Bates; Samah Jarad; Nancy S Redeker; Stephen L Luther; Thomas M Gill; Cynthia A Brandt; Amy C Justice
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2020-08-28       Impact factor: 5.562

10.  Landmark risk prediction of residual life for breast cancer survival.

Authors:  Layla Parast; Tianxi Cai
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2013-03-14       Impact factor: 2.373

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.