Literature DB >> 21673124

Evaluating the incremental value of new biomarkers with integrated discrimination improvement.

Kathleen F Kerr1, Robyn L McClelland, Elizabeth R Brown, Thomas Lumley.   

Abstract

The integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) index is a popular tool for evaluating the capacity of a marker to predict a binary outcome of interest. Recent reports have proposed that the IDI is more sensitive than other metrics for identifying useful predictive markers. In this article, the authors use simulated data sets and theoretical analysis to investigate the statistical properties of the IDI. The authors consider the common situation in which a risk model is fitted to a data set with and without the new, candidate predictor(s). Results demonstrate that the published method of estimating the standard error of an IDI estimate tends to underestimate the error. The z test proposed in the literature for IDI-based testing of a new biomarker is not valid, because the null distribution of the test statistic is not standard normal, even in large samples. If a test for the incremental value of a marker is desired, the authors recommend the test based on the model. For investigators who find the IDI to be a useful measure, bootstrap methods may offer a reasonable option for inference when evaluating new predictors, as long as the added predictive capacity is large.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21673124      PMCID: PMC3202159          DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwr086

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Epidemiol        ISSN: 0002-9262            Impact factor:   4.897


  16 in total

1.  Comments on 'Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: From area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond' by M. J. Pencina et al., Statistics in Medicine (DOI: 10.1002/sim.2929).

Authors:  M S Pepe; Z Feng; J W Gu
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2008-01-30       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  The need for reorientation toward cost-effective prediction: comments on 'Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: From area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond' by Pencina et al., Statistics in Medicine (DOI: 10.1002/sim.2929).

Authors:  Yueh-Yun Chi; Xiao-Hua Zhou
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2008-01-30       Impact factor: 2.373

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.  A phase III clinical trial of antibiotics to reduce chorioamnionitis-related perinatal HIV-1 transmission.

Authors:  Taha E Taha; Elizabeth R Brown; Irving F Hoffman; Wafaie Fawzi; Jennifer S Read; Moses Sinkala; Francis E A Martinson; George Kafulafula; Gernard Msamanga; Lynda Emel; Samuel Adeniyi-Jones; Robert Goldenberg
Journal:  AIDS       Date:  2006-06-12       Impact factor: 4.177

5.  Measures to summarize and compare the predictive capacity of markers.

Authors:  Wen Gu; Margaret Pepe
Journal:  Int J Biostat       Date:  2009-10-01       Impact factor: 0.968

6.  Integrated discrimination improvement and probability-sensitive AUC variants.

Authors:  Ben Van Calster; Sabine Van Huffel
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2010-01-30       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 7.  Recent advances in evaluating the prognostic value of a marker.

Authors:  Jarrod E Dalton; Michael W Kattan
Journal:  Scand J Clin Lab Invest Suppl       Date:  2010

8.  Gauging the performance of SNPs, biomarkers, and clinical factors for predicting risk of breast cancer.

Authors:  Margaret S Pepe; Holly E Janes
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2008-07-08       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  Criteria for evaluation of novel markers of cardiovascular risk: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association.

Authors:  Mark A Hlatky; Philip Greenland; Donna K Arnett; Christie M Ballantyne; Michael H Criqui; Mitchell S V Elkind; Alan S Go; Frank E Harrell; Yuling Hong; Barbara V Howard; Virginia J Howard; Priscilla Y Hsue; Christopher M Kramer; Joseph P McConnell; Sharon-Lise T Normand; Christopher J O'Donnell; Sidney C Smith; Peter W F Wilson
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2009-04-13       Impact factor: 29.690

10.  Postprandial glucose improves the risk prediction of cardiovascular death beyond the metabolic syndrome in the nondiabetic population.

Authors:  Hung-Ju Lin; Bai-Chin Lee; Yi-Lwun Ho; Yen-Hung Lin; Ching-Yi Chen; Hsiu-Ching Hsu; Mao-Shin Lin; Kuo-Liong Chien; Ming-Fong Chen
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2009-06-05       Impact factor: 19.112

View more
  75 in total

1.  Surgical ineligibility and mortality among patients with unprotected left main or multivessel coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

Authors:  Stephen W Waldo; Eric A Secemsky; Cashel O'Brien; Kevin F Kennedy; Eugene Pomerantsev; Thoralf M Sundt; Edward J McNulty; Benjamin M Scirica; Robert W Yeh
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2014-11-12       Impact factor: 29.690

Review 2.  Polygenic Scores to Assess Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk: Clinical Perspectives and Basic Implications.

Authors:  Krishna G Aragam; Pradeep Natarajan
Journal:  Circ Res       Date:  2020-04-23       Impact factor: 17.367

3.  Application of net reclassification index to non-nested and point-based risk prediction models: a review.

Authors:  Laine E Thomas; Emily C O'Brien; Jonathan P Piccini; Ralph B D'Agostino; Michael J Pencina
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2019-06-14       Impact factor: 29.983

4.  Commentary: Reporting standards are needed for evaluations of risk reclassification.

Authors:  Margaret S Pepe; Holly Janes
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2011-05-13       Impact factor: 7.196

5.  Multicategory reclassification statistics for assessing improvements in diagnostic accuracy.

Authors:  Jialiang Li; Binyan Jiang; Jason P Fine
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2012-11-28       Impact factor: 5.899

6.  Letter to the editor.

Authors:  Holly Janes
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2013-04-26       Impact factor: 5.899

7.  Utility of Normal Findings on Electrocardiogram and Echocardiogram in Subjects ≥65 Years.

Authors:  Sanjay Venkatesh; Wesley T O'Neal; Stephen T Broughton; Amit J Shah; Elsayed Z Soliman
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  2016-12-18       Impact factor: 2.778

8.  A unified inference procedure for a class of measures to assess improvement in risk prediction systems with survival data.

Authors:  Hajime Uno; Lu Tian; Tianxi Cai; Isaac S Kohane; L J Wei
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2012-10-05       Impact factor: 2.373

9.  Predicting stroke through genetic risk functions: the CHARGE Risk Score Project.

Authors:  Carla A Ibrahim-Verbaas; Myriam Fornage; Joshua C Bis; Seung Hoan Choi; Bruce M Psaty; James B Meigs; Madhu Rao; Mike Nalls; Joao D Fontes; Christopher J O'Donnell; Sekar Kathiresan; Georg B Ehret; Caroline S Fox; Rainer Malik; Martin Dichgans; Helena Schmidt; Jari Lahti; Susan R Heckbert; Thomas Lumley; Kenneth Rice; Jerome I Rotter; Kent D Taylor; Aaron R Folsom; Eric Boerwinkle; Wayne D Rosamond; Eyal Shahar; Rebecca F Gottesman; Peter J Koudstaal; Najaf Amin; Renske G Wieberdink; Abbas Dehghan; Albert Hofman; André G Uitterlinden; Anita L Destefano; Stephanie Debette; Luting Xue; Alexa Beiser; Philip A Wolf; Charles Decarli; M Arfan Ikram; Sudha Seshadri; Thomas H Mosley; W T Longstreth; Cornelia M van Duijn; Lenore J Launer
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2014-01-16       Impact factor: 7.914

10.  Predicting prolonged dose titration in patients starting warfarin.

Authors:  Brian S Finkelman; Benjamin French; Luanne Bershaw; Colleen M Brensinger; Michael B Streiff; Andrew E Epstein; Stephen E Kimmel
Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf       Date:  2016-07-26       Impact factor: 2.890

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.