Literature DB >> 21968770

Joint modeling, covariate adjustment, and interaction: contrasting notions in risk prediction models and risk prediction performance.

Kathleen F Kerr1, Margaret S Pepe.   

Abstract

Epidemiologic methods are well established for investigating the association of a predictor of interest and disease status in the presence of covariates also associated with disease. There is less consensus on how to handle covariates when the goal is to evaluate the increment in prediction performance gained by a new marker when a set of predictors already exists. We distinguish between adjusting for covariates and joint modeling of disease risk in this context. We show that adjustment and joint modeling are distinct concepts, and we describe the specific conditions where they are the same. We also discuss the concept of interaction among variables and describe a notion of interaction that is relevant to prediction performance. We conclude with a discussion of the most appropriate methods for evaluating new biomarkers in the presence of existing predictors.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21968770      PMCID: PMC3660038          DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e31823035fb

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Epidemiology        ISSN: 1044-3983            Impact factor:   4.822


  16 in total

1.  Combining several screening tests: optimality of the risk score.

Authors:  Martin W McIntosh; Margaret Sullivan Pepe
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  Performance of common genetic variants in breast-cancer risk models.

Authors:  Sholom Wacholder; Patricia Hartge; Ross Prentice; Montserrat Garcia-Closas; Heather Spencer Feigelson; W Ryan Diver; Michael J Thun; David G Cox; Susan E Hankinson; Peter Kraft; Bernard Rosner; Christine D Berg; Louise A Brinton; Jolanta Lissowska; Mark E Sherman; Rowan Chlebowski; Charles Kooperberg; Rebecca D Jackson; Dennis W Buckman; Peter Hui; Ruth Pfeiffer; Kevin B Jacobs; Gilles D Thomas; Robert N Hoover; Mitchell H Gail; Stephen J Chanock; David J Hunter
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2010-03-18       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  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

4.  PCA3: a molecular urine assay for predicting prostate biopsy outcome.

Authors:  Ina L Deras; Sheila M J Aubin; Amy Blase; John R Day; Seongjoon Koo; Alan W Partin; William J Ellis; Leonard S Marks; Yves Fradet; Harry Rittenhouse; Jack Groskopf
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2008-03-04       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  Matching in studies of classification accuracy: implications for analysis, efficiency, and assessment of incremental value.

Authors:  Holly Janes; Margaret S Pepe
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2007-05-14       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  Three approaches to regression analysis of receiver operating characteristic curves for continuous test results.

Authors:  M S Pepe
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 2.571

7.  Adjusting for covariate effects on classification accuracy using the covariate-adjusted receiver operating characteristic curve.

Authors:  Holly Janes; Margaret S Pepe
Journal:  Biometrika       Date:  2009-04-01       Impact factor: 2.445

8.  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

9.  Accommodating Covariates in ROC Analysis.

Authors:  Holly Janes; Gary Longton; Margaret Pepe
Journal:  Stata J       Date:  2009-01-01       Impact factor: 2.637

10.  The potential of genes and other markers to inform about risk.

Authors:  Margaret S Pepe; Jessie W Gu; Daryl E Morris
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2010-02-16       Impact factor: 4.254

View more
  7 in total

1.  Further insight into the incremental value of new markers: the interpretation of performance measures and the importance of clinical context.

Authors:  Kathleen F Kerr; Aasthaa Bansal; Margaret S Pepe
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2012-08-08       Impact factor: 4.897

Review 2.  Key concepts and limitations of statistical methods for evaluating biomarkers of kidney disease.

Authors:  Chirag R Parikh; Heather Thiessen-Philbrook
Journal:  J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2014-05-01       Impact factor: 10.121

3.  Landmark Prediction of Long Term Survival Incorporating Short Term Event Time Information.

Authors:  Layla Parast; Su-Chun Cheng; Tianxi Cai
Journal:  J Am Stat Assoc       Date:  2012-08-21       Impact factor: 5.033

4.  Variation in predictive ability of common genetic variants by established strata: the example of breast cancer and age.

Authors:  Hugues Aschard; Noah Zaitlen; Sara Lindström; Peter Kraft
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 4.822

5.  Estimating the receiver operating characteristic curve in studies that match controls to cases on covariates.

Authors:  Margaret Sullivan Pepe; Jing Fan; Christopher W Seymour
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2013-04-17       Impact factor: 3.173

6.  Prognostic and Predictive Values and Statistical Interactions in the Era of Targeted Treatment.

Authors:  Jaya M Satagopan; Alexia Iasonos; Qin Zhou
Journal:  Genet Epidemiol       Date:  2015-09-09       Impact factor: 2.135

7.  Covariate-adjusted measures of discrimination for survival data.

Authors:  Ian R White; Eleni Rapsomaniki
Journal:  Biom J       Date:  2014-12-20       Impact factor: 2.207

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.