Literature DB >> 20224632

Measures to summarize and compare the predictive capacity of markers.

Wen Gu, Margaret Pepe.   

Abstract

The predictive capacity of a marker in a population can be described using the population distribution of risk (Huang et al. 2007; Pepe et al. 2008a; Stern 2008). Virtually all standard statistical summaries of predictability and discrimination can be derived from it (Gail and Pfeiffer 2005). The goal of this paper is to develop methods for making inference about risk prediction markers using summary measures derived from the risk distribution. We describe some new clinically motivated summary measures and give new interpretations to some existing statistical measures. Methods for estimating these summary measures are described along with distribution theory that facilitates construction of confidence intervals from data. We show how markers and, more generally, how risk prediction models, can be compared using clinically relevant measures of predictability. The methods are illustrated by application to markers of lung function and nutritional status for predicting subsequent onset of major pulmonary infection in children suffering from cystic fibrosis. Simulation studies show that methods for inference are valid for use in practice.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 20224632      PMCID: PMC2827895          DOI: 10.2202/1557-4679.1188

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Biostat        ISSN: 1557-4679            Impact factor:   0.968


  30 in total

Review 1.  Phases of biomarker development for early detection of cancer.

Authors:  M S Pepe; R Etzioni; Z Feng; J D Potter; M L Thompson; M Thornquist; M Winget; Y Yasui
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2001-07-18       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 2.  Rules of evidence for cancer molecular-marker discovery and validation.

Authors:  David F Ransohoff
Journal:  Nat Rev Cancer       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 60.716

3.  On criteria for evaluating models of absolute risk.

Authors:  Mitchell H Gail; Ruth M Pfeiffer
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 5.899

4.  Properties of R(2) statistics for logistic regression.

Authors:  Bo Hu; Mari Palta; Jun Shao
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2006-04-30       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  Index for rating diagnostic tests.

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

6.  The effect of including C-reactive protein in cardiovascular risk prediction models for women.

Authors:  Nancy R Cook; Julie E Buring; Paul M Ridker
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2006-07-04       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 7.  Roadmap for developing and validating therapeutically relevant genomic classifiers.

Authors:  Richard Simon
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2005-09-06       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  Changes in the normal maximal expiratory flow-volume curve with growth and aging.

Authors:  R J Knudson; M D Lebowitz; C J Holberg; B Burrows
Journal:  Am Rev Respir Dis       Date:  1983-06

9.  NCHS growth curves for children birth-18 years. United States.

Authors:  P V Hamill; T A Drizd; C L Johnson; R B Reed; A F Roche
Journal:  Vital Health Stat 11       Date:  1977-11

10.  Markers for early detection of cancer: statistical guidelines for nested case-control studies.

Authors:  Stuart G Baker; Barnett S Kramer; Sudhir Srivastava
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2002-02-28       Impact factor: 4.615

View more
  24 in total

1.  Comment: Measures to summarize and compare the predictive capacity of markers.

Authors:  Nancy R Cook
Journal:  Int J Biostat       Date:  2010-07-06       Impact factor: 0.968

2.  Application of the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis (Sepsis-3) Classification: a retrospective population-based cohort study.

Authors:  John P Donnelly; Monika M Safford; Nathan I Shapiro; John W Baddley; Henry E Wang
Journal:  Lancet Infect Dis       Date:  2017-03-04       Impact factor: 25.071

Review 3.  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

4.  Problems with risk reclassification methods for evaluating prediction models.

Authors:  Margaret S Pepe
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2011-05-09       Impact factor: 4.897

5.  Evaluating the incremental value of new biomarkers with integrated discrimination improvement.

Authors:  Kathleen F Kerr; Robyn L McClelland; Elizabeth R Brown; Thomas Lumley
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2011-06-14       Impact factor: 4.897

6.  Evaluating longitudinal markers under two-phase study designs.

Authors:  Marlena Maziarz; Tianxi Cai; Li Qi; Anna S Lok; Yingye Zheng
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2019-07-01       Impact factor: 5.899

7.  Adopting nested case-control quota sampling designs for the evaluation of risk markers.

Authors:  Yingye Zheng; Tianxi Cai; Margaret S Pepe
Journal:  Lifetime Data Anal       Date:  2013-06-27       Impact factor: 1.588

8.  ROC analysis for multiple markers with tree-based classification.

Authors:  Mei-Cheng Wang; Shanshan Li
Journal:  Lifetime Data Anal       Date:  2012-10-10       Impact factor: 1.588

9.  Evaluating incremental values from new predictors with net reclassification improvement in survival analysis.

Authors:  Yingye Zheng; Layla Parast; Tianxi Cai; Marshall Brown
Journal:  Lifetime Data Anal       Date:  2012-12-20       Impact factor: 1.588

10.  A simple index of lipid overaccumulation is a good marker of liver steatosis.

Authors:  Giorgio Bedogni; Henry S Kahn; Stefano Bellentani; Claudio Tiribelli
Journal:  BMC Gastroenterol       Date:  2010-08-25       Impact factor: 3.067

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.