Literature DB >> 19843888

Putting risk prediction in perspective: relative utility curves.

Stuart G Baker1.   

Abstract

Risk prediction models based on medical history or results of tests are increasingly common in the cancer literature. An important use of these models is to make treatment decisions on the basis of estimated risk. The relative utility curve is a simple method for evaluating risk prediction in a medical decision-making framework. Relative utility curves have three attractive features for the evaluation of risk prediction models. First, they put risk prediction into perspective because relative utility is the fraction of the expected utility of perfect prediction obtained by the risk prediction model at the optimal cut point. Second, they do not require precise specification of harms and benefits because relative utility is plotted against a summary measure of harms and benefits (ie, the risk threshold). Third, they are easy to compute from standard tables of data found in many articles on risk prediction. An important use of relative utility curves is to evaluate the addition of a risk factor to the risk prediction model. To illustrate an application of relative utility curves, an analysis was performed on previously published data involving the addition of breast density to a risk prediction model for invasive breast cancer.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19843888      PMCID: PMC2778669          DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djp353

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst        ISSN: 0027-8874            Impact factor:   13.506


  13 in total

1.  Basic principles of ROC analysis.

Authors:  C E Metz
Journal:  Semin Nucl Med       Date:  1978-10       Impact factor: 4.446

2.  Prediction of cancer outcome with microarrays: a multiple random validation strategy.

Authors:  Stefan Michiels; Serge Koscielny; Catherine Hill
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2005 Feb 5-11       Impact factor: 79.321

3.  Gene expression profiling: does it add predictive accuracy to clinical characteristics in cancer prognosis?

Authors:  Daniela Dunkler; Stefan Michiels; Michael Schemper
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2007-01-25       Impact factor: 9.162

4.  The threshold approach to clinical decision making.

Authors:  S G Pauker; J P Kassirer
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1980-05-15       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  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

6.  Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models.

Authors:  Andrew J Vickers; Elena B Elkin
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2006 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.583

7.  Using relative utility curves to evaluate risk prediction.

Authors:  Stuart G Baker; Nancy R Cook; Andrew Vickers; Barnett S Kramer
Journal:  J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc       Date:  2009-10-01       Impact factor: 2.483

8.  Assessing the value of risk predictions by using risk stratification tables.

Authors:  Holly Janes; Margaret S Pepe; Wen Gu
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2008-11-18       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Using clinical factors and mammographic breast density to estimate breast cancer risk: development and validation of a new predictive model.

Authors:  Jeffrey A Tice; Steven R Cummings; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Laura Ichikawa; William E Barlow; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2008-03-04       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  Extensions to decision curve analysis, a novel method for evaluating diagnostic tests, prediction models and molecular markers.

Authors:  Andrew J Vickers; Angel M Cronin; Elena B Elkin; Mithat Gonen
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2008-11-26       Impact factor: 2.796

View more
  37 in total

1.  Gene signatures revisited.

Authors:  Stuart G Baker
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2012-01-18       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Re: Combined associations of genetic and environmental risk factors: implications for prevention of breast cancer.

Authors:  Stuart G Baker
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2015-05-07       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Vardeman, S. B. and Morris, M. D. (2013), "Majority Voting by Independent Classifiers can Increase Error Rates," The American Statistician, 67, 94-96: Comment by Baker, Xu, Hu, and Huang and Reply.

Authors:  Stuart G Baker; Jian-Lun Xu; Ping Hu; Peng Huang
Journal:  Am Stat       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 8.710

4.  Evaluating Prognostic Markers Using Relative Utility Curves and Test Tradeoffs.

Authors:  Stuart G Baker; Barnett S Kramer
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-06-29       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Response.

Authors:  Margaret Sullivan Pepe
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2014-11-27       Impact factor: 13.506

6.  Decision Curves and Relative Utility Curves.

Authors:  Stuart G Baker
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2019-05-20       Impact factor: 2.583

7.  Assessing the incremental value of diagnostic and prognostic markers: a review and illustration.

Authors:  Ewout W Steyerberg; Michael J Pencina; Hester F Lingsma; Michael W Kattan; Andrew J Vickers; Ben Van Calster
Journal:  Eur J Clin Invest       Date:  2011-07-05       Impact factor: 4.686

8.  Assessing the Clinical Impact of Risk Models for Opting Out of Treatment.

Authors:  Kathleen F Kerr; Marshall D Brown; Tracey L Marsh; Holly Janes
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2019-01-16       Impact factor: 2.583

9.  The potential for using risk models in future lung cancer screening trials.

Authors:  John K Field; Olaide Y Raji
Journal:  F1000 Med Rep       Date:  2010-05-24

10.  Predicting prolonged dose titration in patients starting warfarin.

Authors:  Brian S Finkelman; Benjamin French; Luanne Bershaw; Colleen M Brensinger; Michael B Streiff; Andrew E Epstein; Stephen E Kimmel
Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf       Date:  2016-07-26       Impact factor: 2.890

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.