Literature DB >> 18945268

Identifying subjects who benefit from additional information for better prediction of the outcome variables.

L Tian1, T Cai, L J Wei.   

Abstract

Suppose that we are interested in using new bio- or clinical markers, in addition to the conventional markers, to improve prediction or diagnosis of the patient's clinical outcome. The incremental value from the new markers is typically assessed by averaging across patients in the entire study population. However, when measuring the new markers is costly or invasive, an overall improvement does not justify measuring the new markers in all patients. A more practical strategy is to utilize the patient's conventional markers to decide whether the new markers are needed for improving prediction of his/her health outcomes. In this article, we propose inference procedures for the incremental values of new markers across various subgroups of patients classified by the conventional markers. The resulting point and interval estimates can be quite useful for medical decision makers seeking to balance the predictive or diagnostic value of new markers against their associated cost and risk. Our proposals are theoretically justified and illustrated empirically with two real examples.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18945268      PMCID: PMC2921328          DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2008.01125.x

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


  16 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Comments on 'Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: From area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond' by M. J. Pencina et al., Statistics in Medicine (DOI: 10.1002/sim.2929).

Authors:  M S Pepe; Z Feng; J W Gu
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2008-01-30       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Index for rating diagnostic tests.

Authors:  W J YOUDEN
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1950-01       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  Explained variation for logistic regression.

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

5.  Measures of explained variation for survival data.

Authors:  E L Korn; R Simon
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1990-05       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  Different prognostic impact of systolic function in patients with heart failure and/or acute myocardial infarction.

Authors:  Jens Jakob Thune; Christian Carlsen; Pernille Buch; Marie Seibaek; Hans Burchardt; Christian Torp-Pedersen; Lars Køber
Journal:  Eur J Heart Fail       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 15.534

7.  Predictors of virologic and clinical outcomes in HIV-1-infected patients receiving concurrent treatment with indinavir, zidovudine, and lamivudine. AIDS Clinical Trials Group Protocol 320.

Authors:  L M Demeter; M D Hughes; R W Coombs; J B Jackson; J M Grimes; R J Bosch; S A Fiscus; S A Spector; K E Squires; M A Fischl; S M Hammer
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2001-12-04       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  A controlled trial of two nucleoside analogues plus indinavir in persons with human immunodeficiency virus infection and CD4 cell counts of 200 per cubic millimeter or less. AIDS Clinical Trials Group 320 Study Team.

Authors:  S M Hammer; K E Squires; M D Hughes; J M Grimes; L M Demeter; J S Currier; J J Eron; J E Feinberg; H H Balfour; L R Deyton; J A Chodakewitz; M A Fischl
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1997-09-11       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  A clinical trial of the angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor trandolapril in patients with left ventricular dysfunction after myocardial infarction. Trandolapril Cardiac Evaluation (TRACE) Study Group.

Authors:  L Køber; C Torp-Pedersen; J E Carlsen; H Bagger; P Eliasen; K Lyngborg; J Videbaek; D S Cole; L Auclert; N C Pauly
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1995-12-21       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  Probabilistic prediction in patient management and clinical trials.

Authors:  D J Spiegelhalter
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1986 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.373

View more
  6 in total

1.  Graphical procedures for evaluating overall and subject-specific incremental values from new predictors with censored event time data.

Authors:  Hajime Uno; Tianxi Cai; Lu Tian; L J Wei
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2011-04-19       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  Incorporating short-term outcome information to predict long-term survival with discrete markers.

Authors:  Layla Parast; Su-Chun Cheng; Tianxi Cai
Journal:  Biom J       Date:  2011-02-21       Impact factor: 2.207

3.  Subgroup specific incremental value of new markers for risk prediction.

Authors:  Qian M Zhou; Yingye Zheng; Tianxi Cai
Journal:  Lifetime Data Anal       Date:  2012-12-23       Impact factor: 1.588

Review 4.  Amfetamine and methylphenidate medications for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: complementary treatment options.

Authors:  Paul Hodgkins; Monica Shaw; David Coghill; Lily Hechtman
Journal:  Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry       Date:  2012-07-05       Impact factor: 4.785

5.  Tailoring the implementation of new biomarkers based on their added predictive value in subgroups of individuals.

Authors:  A van Giessen; K G M Moons; G A de Wit; W M M Verschuren; J M A Boer; H Koffijberg
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-01-26       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Identifying a subpopulation with higher likelihoods of early response to treatment in a heterogeneous rare disease: a post hoc study of response to teduglutide for short bowel syndrome.

Authors:  Kristina S Chen; Jipan Xie; Wenxi Tang; Jing Zhao; Palle B Jeppesen; James E Signorovitch
Journal:  Ther Clin Risk Manag       Date:  2018-07-25       Impact factor: 2.423

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.