Literature DB >> 18064569

Evaluating the ROC performance of markers for future events.

Margaret S Pepe1, Yingye Zheng, Yuying Jin, Ying Huang, Chirag R Parikh, Wayne C Levy.   

Abstract

Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves play a central role in the evaluation of biomarkers and tests for disease diagnosis. Predictors for event time outcomes can also be evaluated with ROC curves, but the time lag between marker measurement and event time must be acknowledged. We discuss different definitions of time-dependent ROC curves in the context of real applications. Several approaches have been proposed for estimation. We contrast retrospective versus prospective methods in regards to assumptions and flexibility, including their capacities to incorporate censored data, competing risks and different sampling schemes. Applications to two datasets are presented.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18064569     DOI: 10.1007/s10985-007-9073-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lifetime Data Anal        ISSN: 1380-7870            Impact factor:   1.588


  21 in total

1.  ROC methodology within a monitoring framework.

Authors:  Corette B Parker; Elizabeth R DeLong
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2003-11-30       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  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

3.  Estimation of time-dependent area under the ROC curve for long-term risk prediction.

Authors:  Lloyd E Chambless; Guoqing Diao
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2006-10-30       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  Incorporating the time dimension in receiver operating characteristic curves: a case study of prostate cancer.

Authors:  R Etzioni; M Pepe; G Longton; C Hu; G Goodman
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1999 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 2.583

5.  Multiple biomarkers for the prediction of first major cardiovascular events and death.

Authors:  Thomas J Wang; Philimon Gona; Martin G Larson; Geoffrey H Tofler; Daniel Levy; Christopher Newton-Cheh; Paul F Jacques; Nader Rifai; Jacob Selhub; Sander J Robins; Emelia J Benjamin; Ralph B D'Agostino; Ramachandran S Vasan
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2006-12-21       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Use and misuse of the receiver operating characteristic curve in risk prediction.

Authors:  Nancy R Cook
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2007-02-20       Impact factor: 29.690

7.  Effect of amlodipine on morbidity and mortality in severe chronic heart failure. Prospective Randomized Amlodipine Survival Evaluation Study Group.

Authors:  M Packer; C M O'Connor; J K Ghali; M L Pressler; P E Carson; R N Belkin; A B Miller; G W Neuberg; D Frid; J H Wertheimer; A B Cropp; D L DeMets
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1996-10-10       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  The Seattle Heart Failure Model: prediction of survival in heart failure.

Authors:  Wayne C Levy; Dariush Mozaffarian; David T Linker; Santosh C Sutradhar; Stefan D Anker; Anne B Cropp; Inder Anand; Aldo Maggioni; Paul Burton; Mark D Sullivan; Bertram Pitt; Philip A Poole-Wilson; Douglas L Mann; Milton Packer
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2006-03-13       Impact factor: 29.690

9.  Application of the time-dependent ROC curves for prognostic accuracy with multiple biomarkers.

Authors:  Yingye Zheng; Tianxi Cai; Ziding Feng
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 2.571

10.  Prospective accuracy for longitudinal markers.

Authors:  Yingye Zheng; Patrick J Heagerty
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 2.571

View more
  11 in total

1.  Models and estimation for systems with recurrent events and usage processes.

Authors:  Jerald F Lawless; Martin J Crowder
Journal:  Lifetime Data Anal       Date:  2010-03-11       Impact factor: 1.588

2.  Evaluating a 4-marker signature of aggressive prostate cancer using time-dependent AUC.

Authors:  Travis A Gerke; Neil E Martin; Zhihu Ding; Elizabeth J Nuttall; Edward C Stack; Edward Giovannucci; Rosina T Lis; Meir J Stampfer; Phillip W Kantoff; Giovanni Parmigiani; Massimo Loda; Lorelei A Mucci
Journal:  Prostate       Date:  2015-09-07       Impact factor: 4.104

3.  Evaluating prognostic accuracy of biomarkers under competing risk.

Authors:  Yingye Zheng; Tianxi Cai; Yuying Jin; Ziding Feng
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2011-12-07       Impact factor: 2.571

4.  Semiparametric models of time-dependent predictive values of prognostic biomarkers.

Authors:  Yingye Zheng; Tianxi Cai; Janet L Stanford; Ziding Feng
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2009-04-13       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 5.  Chapter 12: systematic review of prognostic tests.

Authors:  Thomas S Rector; Brent C Taylor; Timothy J Wilt
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  Maternal markers for detecting early-onset neonatal infection and chorioamnionitis in cases of premature rupture of membranes at or after 34 weeks of gestation: a two-center prospective study.

Authors:  Thomas Popowski; François Goffinet; Françoise Maillard; Thomas Schmitz; Sandrine Leroy; Gilles Kayem
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2011-04-07       Impact factor: 3.007

7.  Boosting the concordance index for survival data--a unified framework to derive and evaluate biomarker combinations.

Authors:  Andreas Mayr; Matthias Schmid
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-01-06       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Normalized emphysema scores on low dose CT: Validation as an imaging biomarker for mortality.

Authors:  Leticia Gallardo-Estrella; Esther Pompe; Pim A de Jong; Colin Jacobs; Eva M van Rikxoort; Mathias Prokop; Clara I Sánchez; Bram van Ginneken
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-12-11       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Interpretation of genetic association studies: markers with replicated highly significant odds ratios may be poor classifiers.

Authors:  Johanna Jakobsdottir; Michael B Gorin; Yvette P Conley; Robert E Ferrell; Daniel E Weeks
Journal:  PLoS Genet       Date:  2009-02-06       Impact factor: 5.917

10.  Boosting the discriminatory power of sparse survival models via optimization of the concordance index and stability selection.

Authors:  Andreas Mayr; Benjamin Hofner; Matthias Schmid
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2016-07-22       Impact factor: 3.169

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.