Literature DB >> 22021938

Borrowing Information across Populations in Estimating Positive and Negative Predictive Values.

Ying Huang1, Youyi Fong, John Wei, Ziding Feng.   

Abstract

A marker's capacity to predict risk of a disease depends on disease prevalence in the target population and its classification accuracy, i.e. its ability to discriminate diseased subjects from non-diseased subjects. The latter is often considered an intrinsic property of the marker; it is independent of disease prevalence and hence more likely to be similar across populations than risk prediction measures. In this paper, we are interested in evaluating the population-specific performance of a risk prediction marker in terms of positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) at given thresholds, when samples are available from the target population as well as from another population. A default strategy is to estimate PPV and NPV using samples from the target population only. However, when the marker's classification accuracy as characterized by a specific point on the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve is similar across populations, borrowing information across populations allows increased efficiency in estimating PPV and NPV. We develop estimators that optimally combine information across populations. We apply this methodology to a cross-sectional study where we evaluate PCA3 as a risk prediction marker for prostate cancer among subjects with or without previous negative biopsy.

Entities:  

Year:  2011        PMID: 22021938      PMCID: PMC3196635          DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9876.2011.00761.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J R Stat Soc Ser C Appl Stat        ISSN: 0035-9254            Impact factor:   1.864


  10 in total

1.  Comparisons of predictive values of binary medical diagnostic tests for paired designs.

Authors:  W Leisenring; T Alonzo; M S Pepe
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 2.  Phases of biomarker development for early detection of cancer.

Authors:  M S Pepe; R Etzioni; Z Feng; J D Potter; M L Thompson; M Thornquist; M Winget; Y Yasui
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2001-07-18       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Quantifying and comparing the predictive accuracy of continuous prognostic factors for binary outcomes.

Authors:  Chaya S Moskowitz; Margaret S Pepe
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 5.899

4.  Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease.

Authors:  N MANTEL; W HAENSZEL
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1959-04       Impact factor: 13.506

5.  The analysis of placement values for evaluating discriminatory measures.

Authors:  Margaret Sullivan Pepe; Tianxi Cai
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  Comparing the predictive values of diagnostic tests: sample size and analysis for paired study designs.

Authors:  Chaya S Moskowitz; Margaret S Pepe
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 2.486

7.  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

8.  Sample size for positive and negative predictive value in diagnostic research using case-control designs.

Authors:  David M Steinberg; Jason Fine; Rick Chappell
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2008-06-12       Impact factor: 5.899

9.  Adjusting for covariates in studies of diagnostic, screening, or prognostic markers: an old concept in a new setting.

Authors:  Holly Janes; Margaret S Pepe
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2008-05-13       Impact factor: 4.897

10.  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

  10 in total
  4 in total

1.  Estimating covariate-adjusted measures of diagnostic accuracy based on pooled biomarker assessments.

Authors:  Christopher S McMahan; Alexander C McLain; Colin M Gallagher; Enrique F Schisterman
Journal:  Biom J       Date:  2016-03-01       Impact factor: 2.207

2.  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

3.  A weighting approach for judging the effect of patient strata on high-dimensional risk prediction signatures.

Authors:  Veronika Weyer; Harald Binder
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2015-09-15       Impact factor: 3.169

4.  Model-based optimization of subgroup weights for survival analysis.

Authors:  Jakob Richter; Katrin Madjar; Jörg Rahnenführer
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2019-07-15       Impact factor: 6.937

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.