Literature DB >> 22875755

Interpreting incremental value of markers added to risk prediction models.

Michael J Pencina1, Ralph B D'Agostino, Karol M Pencina, A Cecile J W Janssens, Philip Greenland.   

Abstract

The discrimination of a risk prediction model measures that model's ability to distinguish between subjects with and without events. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) is a popular measure of discrimination. However, the AUC has recently been criticized for its insensitivity in model comparisons in which the baseline model has performed well. Thus, 2 other measures have been proposed to capture improvement in discrimination for nested models: the integrated discrimination improvement and the continuous net reclassification improvement. In the present study, the authors use mathematical relations and numerical simulations to quantify the improvement in discrimination offered by candidate markers of different strengths as measured by their effect sizes. They demonstrate that the increase in the AUC depends on the strength of the baseline model, which is true to a lesser degree for the integrated discrimination improvement. On the other hand, the continuous net reclassification improvement depends only on the effect size of the candidate variable and its correlation with other predictors. These measures are illustrated using the Framingham model for incident atrial fibrillation. The authors conclude that the increase in the AUC, integrated discrimination improvement, and net reclassification improvement offer complementary information and thus recommend reporting all 3 alongside measures characterizing the performance of the final model.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22875755      PMCID: PMC3530349          DOI: 10.1093/aje/kws207

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


  28 in total

1.  Executive Summary of The Third Report of The National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, And Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol In Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III).

Authors: 
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2001-05-16       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Novel metrics for evaluating improvement in discrimination: net reclassification and integrated discrimination improvement for normal variables and nested models.

Authors:  Michael J Pencina; Ralph B D'Agostino; Olga V Demler
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2011-12-07       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Overall C as a measure of discrimination in survival analysis: model specific population value and confidence interval estimation.

Authors:  Michael J Pencina; Ralph B D'Agostino
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2004-07-15       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 4.  Limitations of the odds ratio in gauging the performance of a diagnostic, prognostic, or screening marker.

Authors:  Margaret Sullivan Pepe; Holly Janes; Gary Longton; Wendy Leisenring; Polly Newcomb
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2004-05-01       Impact factor: 4.897

5.  Index for rating diagnostic tests.

Authors:  W J YOUDEN
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1950-01       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 6.  Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors.

Authors:  F E Harrell; K L Lee; D B Mark
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1996-02-28       Impact factor: 2.373

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.  Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually.

Authors:  M H Gail; L A Brinton; D P Byar; D K Corle; S B Green; C Schairer; J J Mulvihill
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1989-12-20       Impact factor: 13.506

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.  Stroke risk profile: adjustment for antihypertensive medication. The Framingham Study.

Authors:  R B D'Agostino; P A Wolf; A J Belanger; W B Kannel
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  1994-01       Impact factor: 7.914

View more
  183 in total

1.  Improving the analysis and modeling of substance use.

Authors:  David A Gorelick; Sterling McPherson
Journal:  Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse       Date:  2015-09-25       Impact factor: 3.829

2.  Comparison of lifestyle-based and traditional cardiovascular disease prediction in a multiethnic cohort of nonsmoking women.

Authors:  Nina P Paynter; Michael J LaMonte; JoAnn E Manson; Lisa W Martin; Lawrence S Phillips; Paul M Ridker; Jennifer G Robinson; Nancy R Cook
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2014-08-25       Impact factor: 29.690

Review 3.  Biomarkers for incident CKD: a new framework for interpreting the literature.

Authors:  Michael G Shlipak; Erica C Day
Journal:  Nat Rev Nephrol       Date:  2013-06-11       Impact factor: 28.314

Review 4.  The potential of novel biomarkers to improve risk prediction of type 2 diabetes.

Authors:  Christian Herder; Bernd Kowall; Adam G Tabak; Wolfgang Rathmann
Journal:  Diabetologia       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 10.122

5.  Cardiovascular Outcomes According to Urinary Albumin and Kidney Disease in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes at High Cardiovascular Risk: Observations From the SAVOR-TIMI 53 Trial.

Authors:  Benjamin M Scirica; Ofri Mosenzon; Deepak L Bhatt; Jacob A Udell; Ph Gabriel Steg; Darren K McGuire; KyungAh Im; Estella Kanevsky; Christina Stahre; Mikaela Sjöstrand; Itamar Raz; Eugene Braunwald
Journal:  JAMA Cardiol       Date:  2018-02-01       Impact factor: 14.676

6.  High-sensitivity cardiac troponin T and the risk of incident atrial fibrillation: the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study.

Authors:  Kristian B Filion; Sunil K Agarwal; Christie M Ballantyne; Maria Eberg; Ron C Hoogeveen; Rachel R Huxley; Laura R Loehr; Vijay Nambi; Elsayed Z Soliman; Alvaro Alonso
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2014-10-22       Impact factor: 4.749

7.  Estimating 1-Year Mortality for High-Risk Primary Care Patients Using the "Surprise" Question.

Authors:  Joshua R Lakin; Margaret G Robinson; Rachelle E Bernacki; Brian W Powers; Susan D Block; Rebecca Cunningham; Ziad Obermeyer
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2016-12-01       Impact factor: 21.873

8.  Predictive ability of novel volumetric and geometric indices derived from dual-energy X-ray absorptiometric images of the proximal femur for hip fracture compared with conventional areal bone mineral density: the Japanese Population-based Osteoporosis (JPOS) Cohort Study.

Authors:  M Iki; R Winzenrieth; J Tamaki; Y Sato; N Dongmei; E Kajita; K Kouda; A Yura; T Tachiki; K Kamiya; S Kagamimori
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2021-05-26       Impact factor: 4.507

9.  Serum Uromodulin Predicts Less Coronary Artery Calcification and Diabetic Kidney Disease Over 12 Years in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: The CACTI Study.

Authors:  Petter Bjornstad; Pattara Wiromrat; Richard J Johnson; Rachel Sippl; David Z I Cherney; Randy Wong; Marian J Rewers; Janet K Snell-Bergeon
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2018-11-27       Impact factor: 19.112

10.  Selection criteria for lung-cancer screening.

Authors:  Martin C Tammemägi; Hormuzd A Katki; William G Hocking; Timothy R Church; Neil Caporaso; Paul A Kvale; Anil K Chaturvedi; Gerard A Silvestri; Tom L Riley; John Commins; Christine D Berg
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2013-02-21       Impact factor: 91.245

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.