Literature DB >> 20069131

Using relative utility curves to evaluate risk prediction.

Stuart G Baker1, Nancy R Cook, Andrew Vickers, Barnett S Kramer.   

Abstract

Because many medical decisions are based on risk prediction models constructed from medical history and results of tests, the evaluation of these prediction models is important. This paper makes five contributions to this evaluation: (1) the relative utility curve which gauges the potential for better prediction in terms of utilities, without the need for a reference level for one utility, while providing a sensitivity analysis for missipecification of utilities, (2) the relevant region, which is the set of values of prediction performance consistent with the recommended treatment status in the absence of prediction (3) the test threshold, which is the minimum number of tests that would be traded for a true positive in order for the expected utility to be non-negative, (4) the evaluation of two-stage predictions that reduce test costs, and (5) connections among various measures of prediction performance. An application involving the risk of cardiovascular disease is discussed.

Entities:  

Year:  2009        PMID: 20069131      PMCID: PMC2804257          DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-985X.2009.00592.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc        ISSN: 0964-1998            Impact factor:   2.483


  13 in total

1.  Therapeutic decision making: a cost-benefit analysis.

Authors:  S G Pauker; J P Kassirer
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1975-07-31       Impact factor: 91.245

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.  The Skill Plot: a graphical technique for evaluating continuous diagnostic tests.

Authors:  William M Briggs; Russell Zaretzki
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 2.571

4.  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

5.  The numerical measure of the success of predictions.

Authors:  C S Peirce
Journal:  Science       Date:  1884-11-14       Impact factor: 47.728

6.  The evaluation of diagnostic tests.

Authors:  S W GREENHOUSE; N MANTEL
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1950-12       Impact factor: 2.571

7.  Problems of spectrum and bias in evaluating the efficacy of diagnostic tests.

Authors:  D F Ransohoff; A R Feinstein
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1978-10-26       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  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

9.  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

10.  A randomized trial of low-dose aspirin in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in women.

Authors:  Paul M Ridker; Nancy R Cook; I-Min Lee; David Gordon; J Michael Gaziano; Joann E Manson; Charles H Hennekens; Julie E Buring
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2005-03-07       Impact factor: 91.245

View more
  62 in total

1.  Novel metrics for evaluating improvement in discrimination: net reclassification and integrated discrimination improvement for normal variables and nested models.

Authors:  Michael J Pencina; Ralph B D'Agostino; Olga V Demler
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2011-12-07       Impact factor: 2.373

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.  Application of net reclassification index to non-nested and point-based risk prediction models: a review.

Authors:  Laine E Thomas; Emily C O'Brien; Jonathan P Piccini; Ralph B D'Agostino; Michael J Pencina
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2019-06-14       Impact factor: 29.983

4.  Putting risk prediction in perspective: relative utility curves.

Authors:  Stuart G Baker
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2009-10-20       Impact factor: 13.506

5.  Decision Curves and Relative Utility Curves.

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

6.  Remarks on 'A simple decision analytic solution to the comparison of two binary diagnostic tests' by Vickers et al.

Authors:  Stuart G Baker
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2013-02-20       Impact factor: 2.373

7.  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

8.  Understanding increments in model performance metrics.

Authors:  Michael J Pencina; Ralph B D'Agostino; Joseph M Massaro
Journal:  Lifetime Data Anal       Date:  2012-12-16       Impact factor: 1.588

9.  The genetic interpretation of area under the ROC curve in genomic profiling.

Authors:  Naomi R Wray; Jian Yang; Michael E Goddard; Peter M Visscher
Journal:  PLoS Genet       Date:  2010-02-26       Impact factor: 5.917

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.