Literature DB >> 21155746

Two criteria for evaluating risk prediction models.

R M Pfeiffer1, M H Gail.   

Abstract

We propose and study two criteria to assess the usefulness of models that predict risk of disease incidence for screening and prevention, or the usefulness of prognostic models for management following disease diagnosis. The first criterion, the proportion of cases followed PCF (q), is the proportion of individuals who will develop disease who are included in the proportion q of individuals in the population at highest risk. The second criterion is the proportion needed to follow-up, PNF (p), namely the proportion of the general population at highest risk that one needs to follow in order that a proportion p of those destined to become cases will be followed. PCF (q) assesses the effectiveness of a program that follows 100q% of the population at highest risk. PNF (p) assess the feasibility of covering 100p% of cases by indicating how much of the population at highest risk must be followed. We show the relationship of those two criteria to the Lorenz curve and its inverse, and present distribution theory for estimates of PCF and PNF. We develop new methods, based on influence functions, for inference for a single risk model, and also for comparing the PCFs and PNFs of two risk models, both of which were evaluated in the same validation data.
© 2010, The International Biometric Society No claim to original US Federal works.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21155746      PMCID: PMC3135785          DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2010.01523.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biometrics        ISSN: 0006-341X            Impact factor:   2.571


  14 in total

1.  Polygenic susceptibility to breast cancer and implications for prevention.

Authors:  Paul D P Pharoah; Antonis Antoniou; Martin Bobrow; Ron L Zimmern; Douglas F Easton; Bruce A J Ponder
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2002-03-04       Impact factor: 38.330

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.  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

4.  The evaluation of diagnostic tests.

Authors:  S W GREENHOUSE; N MANTEL
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1950-12       Impact factor: 2.571

5.  Prediction of coronary heart disease using risk factor categories.

Authors:  P W Wilson; R B D'Agostino; D Levy; A M Belanger; H Silbershatz; W B Kannel
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  1998-05-12       Impact factor: 29.690

Review 6.  Weighing the risks and benefits of tamoxifen treatment for preventing breast cancer.

Authors:  M H Gail; J P Costantino; J Bryant; R Croyle; L Freedman; K Helzlsouer; V Vogel
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1999-11-03       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  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

8.  20-year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Peter C Albertsen; James A Hanley; Judith Fine
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2005-05-04       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models.

Authors:  Andrew J Vickers; Elena B Elkin
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2006 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.583

10.  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

View more
  23 in total

1.  Evaluating risk of ESRD in the urban poor.

Authors:  Marlena Maziarz; R Anthony Black; Christine T Fong; Jonathan Himmelfarb; Glenn M Chertow; Yoshio N Hall
Journal:  J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2014-12-04       Impact factor: 10.121

2.  Twenty-five years of breast cancer risk models and their applications.

Authors:  Mitchell H Gail
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2015-02-26       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  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

4.  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

5.  Using multiple risk models with preventive interventions.

Authors:  Mitchell H Gail
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2012-06-26       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  IMPROVING EFFICIENCY IN BIOMARKER INCREMENTAL VALUE EVALUATION UNDER TWO-PHASE DESIGNS.

Authors:  Yingye Zheng; Marshall Brown; Anna Lok; Tianxi Cai
Journal:  Ann Appl Stat       Date:  2017-07-20       Impact factor: 2.083

7.  Testing for improvement in prediction model performance.

Authors:  Margaret Sullivan Pepe; Kathleen F Kerr; Gary Longton; Zheyu Wang
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2013-01-07       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  Breast Cancer Risk Model Requirements for Counseling, Prevention, and Screening.

Authors:  Mitchell H Gail; Ruth M Pfeiffer
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2018-09-01       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  Homelessness and risk of end-stage renal disease.

Authors:  Marlena Maziarz; Glenn M Chertow; Jonathan Himmelfarb; Yoshio N Hall
Journal:  J Health Care Poor Underserved       Date:  2014-08

10.  Estimating improvement in prediction with matched case-control designs.

Authors:  Aasthaa Bansal; Margaret Sullivan Pepe
Journal:  Lifetime Data Anal       Date:  2013-01-29       Impact factor: 1.588

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.