Literature DB >> 20496347

Evaluating the improvement in diagnostic utility from adding new predictors.

Caixia Li1, Ying Lu.   

Abstract

Multiple diagnostic tests and risk factors are commonly available for many diseases. This information can be either redundant or complimentary. Combining them may improve the diagnostic/predictive accuracy, but also unnecessarily increase complexity, risks, and/or costs. The improved accuracy gained by including additional variables can be evaluated by the increment of the area under (AUC) the receiver-operating characteristic curves with and without the new variable(s). In this study, we derive a new test statistic to accurately and efficiently determine the statistical significance of this incremental AUC under a multivariate normality assumption. Our test links AUC difference to a quadratic form of a standardized mean shift in a unit of the inverse covariance matrix through a properly linear transformation of all diagnostic variables. The distribution of the quadratic estimator is related to the multivariate Behrens-Fisher problem. We provide explicit mathematical solutions of the estimator and its approximate non-central F-distribution, type I error rate, and sample size formula. We use simulation studies to prove that our new test maintains prespecified type I error rates as well as reasonable statistical power under practical sample sizes. We use data from the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures as an application example to illustrate our method.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20496347      PMCID: PMC3517010          DOI: 10.1002/bimj.200900228

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biom J        ISSN: 0323-3847            Impact factor:   2.207


  21 in total

1.  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

Review 2.  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

3.  On linear combinations of biomarkers to improve diagnostic accuracy.

Authors:  Aiyi Liu; Enrique F Schisterman; Yan Zhu
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2005-01-15       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  Robust combination of multiple diagnostic tests for classifying censored event times.

Authors:  T Cai; S Cheng
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2007-12-03       Impact factor: 5.899

5.  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

6.  A procedure for determining whether a simple combination of diagnostic tests may be noninferior to the theoretical optimum combination.

Authors:  Hua Jin; Ying Lu
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2008-06-12       Impact factor: 2.583

7.  Confidence intervals for the generalized ROC criterion.

Authors:  B Reiser; D Faraggi
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 2.571

8.  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

9.  Bone density at various sites for prediction of hip fractures. The Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group.

Authors:  S R Cummings; D M Black; M C Nevitt; W Browner; J Cauley; K Ensrud; H K Genant; L Palermo; J Scott; T M Vogt
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1993-01-09       Impact factor: 79.321

10.  Permutation test for non-inferiority of the linear to the optimal combination of multiple tests.

Authors:  Hua Jin; Ying Lu
Journal:  Stat Probab Lett       Date:  2009-03-01       Impact factor: 0.870

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Using patient self-reports to study heterogeneity of treatment effects in major depressive disorder.

Authors:  R C Kessler; H M van Loo; K J Wardenaar; R M Bossarte; L A Brenner; D D Ebert; P de Jonge; A A Nierenberg; A J Rosellini; N A Sampson; R A Schoevers; M A Wilcox; A M Zaslavsky
Journal:  Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci       Date:  2016-01-26       Impact factor: 6.892

2.  Testing a machine-learning algorithm to predict the persistence and severity of major depressive disorder from baseline self-reports.

Authors:  R C Kessler; H M van Loo; K J Wardenaar; R M Bossarte; L A Brenner; T Cai; D D Ebert; I Hwang; J Li; P de Jonge; A A Nierenberg; M V Petukhova; A J Rosellini; N A Sampson; R A Schoevers; M A Wilcox; A M Zaslavsky
Journal:  Mol Psychiatry       Date:  2016-01-05       Impact factor: 15.992

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.