Literature DB >> 21415016

Comparing costs associated with risk stratification rules for t-year survival.

Tianxi Cai1, Lu Tian, Donald M Lloyd-Jones.   

Abstract

Accurate risk prediction is an important step in developing optimal strategies for disease prevention and treatment. Based on the predicted risks, patients can be stratified to different risk categories where each category corresponds to a particular clinical intervention. Incorrect or suboptimal interventions are likely to result in unnecessary financial and medical consequences. It is thus essential to account for the costs associated with the clinical interventions when developing and evaluating risk stratification (RS) rules for clinical use. In this article, we propose to quantify the value of an RS rule based on the total expected cost attributed to incorrect assignment of risk groups due to the rule. We have established the relationship between cost parameters and optimal threshold values used in the stratification rule that minimizes the total expected cost over the entire population of interest. Statistical inference procedures are developed for evaluating and comparing given RS rules and examined through simulation studies. The proposed procedures are illustrated with an example from the Cardiovascular Health Study.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21415016      PMCID: PMC3169667          DOI: 10.1093/biostatistics/kxr001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biostatistics        ISSN: 1465-4644            Impact factor:   5.899


  13 in total

1.  A comparison of C/B ratios from studies using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis.

Authors:  S B Cantor; C C Sun; G Tortolero-Luna; R Richards-Kortum; M Follen
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  Receiver operating characteristic curves and their use in radiology.

Authors:  Nancy A Obuchowski
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Evidence-based guidelines for cardiovascular disease prevention in women.

Authors:  Lori Mosca; Lawrence J Appel; Emelia J Benjamin; Kathy Berra; Nisha Chandra-Strobos; Rosalind P Fabunmi; Deborah Grady; Constance K Haan; Sharonne N Hayes; Debra R Judelson; Nora L Keenan; Patrick McBride; Suzanne Oparil; Pamela Ouyang; Mehmet C Oz; Michael E Mendelsohn; Richard C Pasternak; Vivian W Pinn; Rose Marie Robertson; Karin Schenck-Gustafsson; Cathy A Sila; Sidney C Smith; George Sopko; Anne L Taylor; Brian W Walsh; Nanette K Wenger; Christine L Williams
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2004-02-04       Impact factor: 29.690

4.  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

5.  The effect of including C-reactive protein in cardiovascular risk prediction models for women.

Authors:  Nancy R Cook; Julie E Buring; Paul M Ridker
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2006-07-04       Impact factor: 25.391

6.  The Cardiovascular Health Study: design and rationale.

Authors:  L P Fried; N O Borhani; P Enright; C D Furberg; J M Gardin; R A Kronmal; L H Kuller; T A Manolio; M B Mittelmark; A Newman
Journal:  Ann Epidemiol       Date:  1991-02       Impact factor: 3.797

7.  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

8.  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

9.  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

10.  Cardiovascular disease risk profiles.

Authors:  K M Anderson; P M Odell; P W Wilson; W B Kannel
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  1991-01       Impact factor: 4.749

View more
  1 in total

1.  How to interpret a small increase in AUC with an additional risk prediction marker: decision analysis comes through.

Authors:  Stuart G Baker; Ewoud Schuit; Ewout W Steyerberg; Michael J Pencina; Andrew Vickers; Andew Vickers; Karel G M Moons; Ben W J Mol; Karen S Lindeman
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2014-05-13       Impact factor: 2.373

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.