Literature DB >> 20515278

Classification versus association models: should the same methods apply?

Ziding Feng1.   

Abstract

Association and classification models differ fundamentally in objectives, measurements, and clinical context specificity. Association studies aim to identify biomarker association with disease in a study population and provide etiologic insights. Common association measurements are odds ratio, hazard ratio, and correlation coefficient. Classification studies aim to evaluate biomarker use in aiding specific clinical decisions for individual patients. Common classification measurements are sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). Good association is usually a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for good classification. Methods for developing classification models have mainly used the criteria for association models, usually minimizing total classification error without consideration of clinical application settings, and therefore are not optimal for classification purposes. We suggest that developing classification models by focusing on the region of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve relevant to the intended clinical application optimizes the model for the intended application setting.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20515278      PMCID: PMC3140431          DOI: 10.3109/00365513.2010.493387

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Scand J Clin Lab Invest Suppl        ISSN: 0085-591X


  9 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.  Medical genetics in the genomic medicine of the 21st century.

Authors:  Charles J Epstein
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 11.025

4.  Combining predictors for classification using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve.

Authors:  Margaret Sullivan Pepe; Tianxi Cai; Gary Longton
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 2.571

5.  Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer.

Authors:  Laura J van 't Veer; Hongyue Dai; Marc J van de Vijver; Yudong D He; Augustinus A M Hart; Mao Mao; Hans L Peterse; Karin van der Kooy; Matthew J Marton; Anke T Witteveen; George J Schreiber; Ron M Kerkhoven; Chris Roberts; Peter S Linsley; René Bernards; Stephen H Friend
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2002-01-31       Impact factor: 49.962

6.  Identifying combinations of cancer markers for further study as triggers of early intervention.

Authors:  S G Baker
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 2.571

7.  Application of the time-dependent ROC curves for prognostic accuracy with multiple biomarkers.

Authors:  Yingye Zheng; Tianxi Cai; Ziding Feng
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 2.571

8.  Combining information from common type 2 diabetes risk polymorphisms improves disease prediction.

Authors:  Michael N Weedon; Mark I McCarthy; Graham Hitman; Mark Walker; Christopher J Groves; Eleftheria Zeggini; N William Rayner; Beverley Shields; Katharine R Owen; Andrew T Hattersley; Timothy M Frayling
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 11.069

9.  Pivotal evaluation of the accuracy of a biomarker used for classification or prediction: standards for study design.

Authors:  Margaret S Pepe; Ziding Feng; Holly Janes; Patrick M Bossuyt; John D Potter
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2008-10-07       Impact factor: 13.506

  9 in total
  9 in total

1.  Improving the quality of biomarker discovery research: the right samples and enough of them.

Authors:  Margaret S Pepe; Christopher I Li; Ziding Feng
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2015-04-02       Impact factor: 4.254

2.  Expression of cell cycle-regulated genes and prostate cancer prognosis in a population-based cohort.

Authors:  Rohina Rubicz; Shanshan Zhao; Craig April; Jonathan L Wright; Suzanne Kolb; Ilsa Coleman; Daniel W Lin; Peter S Nelson; Elaine A Ostrander; Ziding Feng; Jian-Bing Fan; Janet L Stanford
Journal:  Prostate       Date:  2015-05-18       Impact factor: 4.104

3.  Assessing the incremental value of new biomarkers based on OR rules.

Authors:  Lu Wang; Alexander R Luedtke; Ying Huang
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2020-07-01       Impact factor: 5.899

4.  CA 19-9 and pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  Erxi Wu; Shuang Zhou; Kruttika Bhat; Qingyong Ma
Journal:  Clin Adv Hematol Oncol       Date:  2013-01

5.  Classification of women with and without hip fracture based on quantitative computed tomography and finite element analysis.

Authors:  K K Nishiyama; M Ito; A Harada; S K Boyd
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2013-08-16       Impact factor: 4.507

6.  Predictive utilities of lipid traits, lipoprotein subfractions and other risk factors for incident diabetes: a machine learning approach in the Diabetes Prevention Program.

Authors:  Tibor V Varga; Jinxi Liu; Ronald B Goldberg; Guannan Chen; Samuel Dagogo-Jack; Carlos Lorenzo; Kieren J Mather; Xavier Pi-Sunyer; Søren Brunak; Marinella Temprosa
Journal:  BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care       Date:  2021-03

7.  Prediction of Cardiovascular Events by Pulse Waveform Parameters: Analysis of CARTaGENE.

Authors:  Louis-Charles Desbiens; Catherine Fortier; Annie-Claire Nadeau-Fredette; François Madore; Bernhard Hametner; Siegfried Wassertheurer; Mohsen Agharazii; Rémi Goupil
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2022-09-03       Impact factor: 6.106

8.  Adding Rigor to Biomarker Evaluations-EDRN Experience.

Authors:  Ziding Feng; Margaret S Pepe
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2020-11-10       Impact factor: 4.254

9.  Assessing the risk of early unplanned rehospitalisation in preterm babies: EPIPAGE 2 study.

Authors:  Robert Anthony Reed; Andrei Scott Morgan; Jennifer Zeitlin; Pierre-Henri Jarreau; Héloïse Torchin; Véronique Pierrat; Pierre-Yves Ancel; Babak Khoshnood
Journal:  BMC Pediatr       Date:  2019-11-21       Impact factor: 2.125

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.