Literature DB >> 20527013

Assessing risk prediction models in case-control studies using semiparametric and nonparametric methods.

Ying Huang1, Margaret Sullivan Pepe.   

Abstract

The predictiveness curve is a graphical tool that characterizes the population distribution of Risk(Y)=P(D=1|Y), where D denotes a binary outcome such as occurrence of an event within a specified time period and Y denotes predictors. A wider distribution of Risk(Y) indicates better performance of a risk model in the sense that making treatment recommendations is easier for more subjects. Decisions are more straightforward when a subject's risk is deemed to be high or low. Methods have been developed to estimate predictiveness curves from cohort studies. However, early phase studies to evaluate novel risk prediction markers typically employ case-control designs. Here, we present semiparametric and nonparametric methods for evaluating a continuous risk prediction marker that accommodates case-control data. Small sample properties are investigated through simulation studies. The semiparametric methods are substantially more efficient than their nonparametric counterparts under a correctly specified model. We generalize them to settings where multiple prediction markers are involved. Applications to prostate cancer risk prediction markers illustrate methods for comparing the risk prediction capacities of markers and for evaluating the increment in performance gained by adding a marker to a baseline risk model. We propose a modified Hosmer-Lemeshow test for case-control study data to assess calibration of the risk model that is a natural complement to this graphical tool. Copyright (c) 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20527013      PMCID: PMC3045657          DOI: 10.1002/sim.3876

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  24 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

2.  Integrating the predictiveness of a marker with its performance as a classifier.

Authors:  Margaret S Pepe; Ziding Feng; Ying Huang; Gary Longton; Ross Prentice; Ian M Thompson; Yingye Zheng
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2007-11-02       Impact factor: 4.897

Review 3.  Statistical evaluation of prognostic versus diagnostic models: beyond the ROC curve.

Authors:  Nancy R Cook
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  2007-11-16       Impact factor: 8.327

4.  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

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.  Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually.

Authors:  M H Gail; L A Brinton; D P Byar; D K Corle; S B Green; C Schairer; J J Mulvihill
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1989-12-20       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  A parametric ROC model-based approach for evaluating the predictiveness of continuous markers in case-control studies.

Authors:  Y Huang; M S Pepe
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 2.571

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.  Validation and clinical utility of a 70-gene prognostic signature for women with node-negative breast cancer.

Authors:  Marc Buyse; Sherene Loi; Laura van't Veer; Giuseppe Viale; Mauro Delorenzi; Annuska M Glas; Mahasti Saghatchian d'Assignies; Jonas Bergh; Rosette Lidereau; Paul Ellis; Adrian Harris; Jan Bogaerts; Patrick Therasse; Arno Floore; Mohamed Amakrane; Fanny Piette; Emiel Rutgers; Christos Sotiriou; Fatima Cardoso; Martine J Piccart
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2006-09-06       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  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

View more
  11 in total

1.  LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS WITH STANDARDIZED MARKERS.

Authors:  Ying Huang; Margaret S Pepe; Ziding Feng
Journal:  Ann Appl Stat       Date:  2013-09-01       Impact factor: 2.083

2.  A multi-locus predictiveness curve and its summary assessment for genetic risk prediction.

Authors:  Changshuai Wei; Ming Li; Yalu Wen; Chengyin Ye; Qing Lu
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2019-01-07       Impact factor: 3.021

3.  Integrated Biomarkers for the Management of Indeterminate Pulmonary Nodules.

Authors:  Michael N Kammer; Dhairya A Lakhani; Aneri B Balar; Sanja L Antic; Amanda K Kussrow; Rebekah L Webster; Shayan Mahapatra; Udaykamal Barad; Chirayu Shah; Thomas Atwater; Brenda Diergaarde; Jun Qian; Alexander Kaizer; Melissa New; Erin Hirsch; William J Feser; Jolene Strong; Matthew Rioth; York E Miller; Yoganand Balagurunathan; Dianna J Rowe; Sherif Helmey; Sheau-Chiann Chen; Joseph Bauza; Stephen A Deppen; Kim Sandler; Fabien Maldonado; Avrum Spira; Ehab Billatos; Matthew B Schabath; Robert J Gillies; David O Wilson; Ronald C Walker; Bennett Landman; Heidi Chen; Eric L Grogan; Anna E Barón; Darryl J Bornhop; Pierre P Massion
Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med       Date:  2021-12-01       Impact factor: 30.528

4.  Using the Lorenz Curve to Characterize Risk Predictiveness and Etiologic Heterogeneity.

Authors:  Audrey Mauguen; Colin B Begg
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 4.822

5.  Partial summary measures of the predictiveness curve.

Authors:  Michael C Sachs; Xiao-Hua Zhou
Journal:  Biom J       Date:  2013-03-18       Impact factor: 2.207

6.  Characterizing expected benefits of biomarkers in treatment selection.

Authors:  Ying Huang; Eric B Laber; Holly Janes
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2014-09-03       Impact factor: 5.899

7.  An approach to evaluating and comparing biomarkers for patient treatment selection.

Authors:  Holly Janes; Marshall D Brown; Ying Huang; Margaret S Pepe
Journal:  Int J Biostat       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 0.968

8.  Correcting Classifiers for Sample Selection Bias in Two-Phase Case-Control Studies.

Authors:  Norbert Krautenbacher; Fabian J Theis; Christiane Fuchs
Journal:  Comput Math Methods Med       Date:  2017-09-24       Impact factor: 2.238

9.  Comparison of artificial neural network and logistic regression models for predicting in-hospital mortality after primary liver cancer surgery.

Authors:  Hon-Yi Shi; King-Teh Lee; Hao-Hsien Lee; Wen-Hsien Ho; Ding-Ping Sun; Jhi-Joung Wang; Chong-Chi Chiu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-04-26       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Characterizing Decision-Analysis Performances of Risk Prediction Models Using ADAPT Curves.

Authors:  Wen-Chung Lee; Yun-Chun Wu
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 1.817

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.