Literature DB >> 20623821

Evaluating health risk models.

Alice S Whittemore1.   

Abstract

Interest in targeted disease prevention has stimulated development of models that assign risks to individuals, using their personal covariates. We need to evaluate these models and quantify the gains achieved by expanding a model to include additional covariates. This paper reviews several performance measures and shows how they are related. Examples are used to show that appropriate performance criteria for a risk model depend upon how the model is used. Application of the performance measures to risk models for hypothetical populations and for US women at risk of breast cancer illustrate two additional points. First, model performance is constrained by the distribution of risk-determining covariates in the population. This complicates the comparison of two models when applied to populations with different covariate distributions. Second, all summary performance measures obscure model features of relevance to its utility for the application at hand, such as performance in specific subgroups of the population. In particular, the precision gained by adding covariates to a model can be small overall, but large in certain subgroups. We propose new ways to identify these subgroups and to quantify how much they gain by measuring the additional covariates. Those with largest gains could be targeted for cost-efficient covariate assessment.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20623821      PMCID: PMC2990501          DOI: 10.1002/sim.3991

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


  26 in total

1.  Assessment and comparison of prognostic classification schemes for survival data.

Authors:  E Graf; C Schmoor; W Sauerbrei; M Schumacher
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1999 Sep 15-30       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  On criteria for evaluating models of absolute risk.

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

3.  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

4.  ACCF/AHA 2007 clinical expert consensus document on coronary artery calcium scoring by computed tomography in global cardiovascular risk assessment and in evaluation of patients with chest pain: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Clinical Expert Consensus Task Force (ACCF/AHA Writing Committee to Update the 2000 Expert Consensus Document on Electron Beam Computed Tomography) developed in collaboration with the Society of Atherosclerosis Imaging and Prevention and the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography.

Authors:  Philip Greenland; Robert O Bonow; Bruce H Brundage; Matthew J Budoff; Mark J Eisenberg; Scott M Grundy; Michael S Lauer; Wendy S Post; Paolo Raggi; Rita F Redberg; George P Rodgers; Leslee J Shaw; Allen J Taylor; William S Weintraub
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2007-01-23       Impact factor: 24.094

5.  Cost-effectiveness of screening BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with breast magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Sylvia K Plevritis; Allison W Kurian; Bronislava M Sigal; Bruce L Daniel; Debra M Ikeda; Frank E Stockdale; Alan M Garber
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2006-05-24       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  What price perfection? Calibration and discrimination of clinical prediction models.

Authors:  G A Diamond
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1992-01       Impact factor: 6.437

7.  The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.

Authors:  J A Hanley; B J McNeil
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1982-04       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Projecting absolute invasive breast cancer risk in white women with a model that includes mammographic density.

Authors:  Jinbo Chen; David Pee; Rajeev Ayyagari; Barry Graubard; Catherine Schairer; Celia Byrne; Jacques Benichou; Mitchell H Gail
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2006-09-06       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  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

10.  Tamoxifen for prevention of breast cancer: report of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 Study.

Authors:  B Fisher; J P Costantino; D L Wickerham; C K Redmond; M Kavanah; W M Cronin; V Vogel; A Robidoux; N Dimitrov; J Atkins; M Daly; S Wieand; E Tan-Chiu; L Ford; N Wolmark
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1998-09-16       Impact factor: 13.506

View more
  12 in total

1.  Predictors of adverse smoking outcomes in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial.

Authors:  Samantha A Barry; Martin C Tammemagi; Sofiya Penek; Elisabeth C Kassan; Caroline S Dorfman; Thomas L Riley; John Commin; Kathryn L Taylor
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2012-10-26       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 2.  Progress of statistical analysis in biomedical research through the historical review of the development of the Framingham score.

Authors:  Aleksandra Ignjatović; Miodrag Stojanović; Zoran Milošević; Marija Anđelković Apostolović
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2017-12-02       Impact factor: 1.568

3.  Lung cancer risk prediction: Prostate, Lung, Colorectal And Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial models and validation.

Authors:  C Martin Tammemagi; Paul F Pinsky; Neil E Caporaso; Paul A Kvale; William G Hocking; Timothy R Church; Thomas L Riley; John Commins; Martin M Oken; Christine D Berg; Philip C Prorok
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2011-05-23       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  Performance of reclassification statistics in comparing risk prediction models.

Authors:  Nancy R Cook; Nina P Paynter
Journal:  Biom J       Date:  2011-02-03       Impact factor: 2.207

5.  Coronary risk assessment among intermediate risk patients using a clinical and biomarker based algorithm developed and validated in two population cohorts.

Authors:  D S Cross; C A McCarty; E Hytopoulos; M Beggs; N Nolan; D S Harrington; T Hastie; R Tibshirani; R P Tracy; B M Psaty; R McClelland; P S Tsao; T Quertermous
Journal:  Curr Med Res Opin       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 2.580

6.  A bias-corrected net reclassification improvement for clinical subgroups.

Authors:  Nina P Paynter; Nancy R Cook
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2012-10-05       Impact factor: 2.583

7.  Two-stage sampling designs for external validation of personal risk models.

Authors:  Alice S Whittemore; Jerry Halpern
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2013-04-16       Impact factor: 3.021

8.  Cardiovascular Disease Risk Assessment: Insights from Framingham.

Authors:  Ralph B D'Agostino; Michael J Pencina; Joseph M Massaro; Sean Coady
Journal:  Glob Heart       Date:  2013-03

9.  Development of a Risk Index for Serious Prescription Opioid-Induced Respiratory Depression or Overdose in Veterans' Health Administration Patients.

Authors:  Barbara Zedler; Lin Xie; Li Wang; Andrew Joyce; Catherine Vick; Janet Brigham; Furaha Kariburyo; Onur Baser; Lenn Murrelle
Journal:  Pain Med       Date:  2015-06-05       Impact factor: 3.750

10.  Practical problems with clinical guidelines for breast cancer prevention based on remaining lifetime risk.

Authors:  Anne S Quante; Alice S Whittemore; Tom Shriver; John L Hopper; Konstantin Strauch; Mary Beth Terry
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2015-05-08       Impact factor: 13.506

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.