Literature DB >> 22875759

Clinically relevant measures of fit? A note of caution.

Nancy R Cook1.   

Abstract

Risk reclassification methods have become popular in the medical literature as a means of comparing risk prediction models. In this issue of the Journal, Pencina et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2012;176(6):492-494) present further results for continuous measures of model discrimination and describe their characteristics in nested models with normally distributed variables. Measures include the change in the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, the integrated discrimination improvement, and the continuous net reclassification improvement. Although theoretically interesting, these continuous measures may not be the most appropriate to assess clinical utility. The continuous net reclassification improvement, in particular, is a measure of effect rather than model improvement and can sometimes exhibit erratic behavior, as illustrated in 2 examples. Caution is needed before using this as a measure of improvement. Further, the test of the continuous net reclassification improvement and that for the integrated discrimination improvement are similar to the likelihood ratio test in nested models and may be overinterpreted. Reclassification in risk strata, while requiring thresholds, may be more relevant clinically with its ability to examine potential changes in treatment decisions.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22875759      PMCID: PMC3530355          DOI: 10.1093/aje/kws208

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


  17 in total

1.  Use of risk stratification to guide ambulatory management of neutropenic fever. Australian Consensus Guidelines 2011 Steering Committee.

Authors:  L J Worth; S Lingaratnam; A Taylor; A M Hayward; S Morrissey; J Cooney; P A Bastick; R W Eek; A Wei; K A Thursky
Journal:  Intern Med J       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 2.048

2.  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

3.  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

4.  Extensions of net reclassification improvement calculations to measure usefulness of new biomarkers.

Authors:  Michael J Pencina; Ralph B D'Agostino; Ewout W Steyerberg
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2010-11-05       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  Performance of reclassification statistics in comparing risk prediction models.

Authors:  Nancy R Cook; Nina P Paynter
Journal:  Biom J       Date:  2011-02-03       Impact factor: 2.207

6.  Consensus recommendations for risk stratification in multiple myeloma: report of the International Myeloma Workshop Consensus Panel 2.

Authors:  Nikhil C Munshi; Kenneth C Anderson; P Leif Bergsagel; John Shaughnessy; Antonio Palumbo; Brian Durie; Rafael Fonseca; A Keith Stewart; Jean-Luc Harousseau; Meletios Dimopoulos; Sundar Jagannath; Roman Hajek; Orhan Sezer; Robert Kyle; Pieter Sonneveld; Michele Cavo; S Vincent Rajkumar; Jesus San Miguel; John Crowley; Hervé Avet-Loiseau
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2011-02-03       Impact factor: 22.113

7.  Development and validation of improved algorithms for the assessment of global cardiovascular risk in women: the Reynolds Risk Score.

Authors:  Paul M Ridker; Julie E Buring; Nader Rifai; Nancy R Cook
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2007-02-14       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  American society of clinical oncology clinical practice guideline update on the use of pharmacologic interventions including tamoxifen, raloxifene, and aromatase inhibition for breast cancer risk reduction.

Authors:  Kala Visvanathan; Rowan T Chlebowski; Patricia Hurley; Nananda F Col; Mary Ropka; Deborah Collyar; Monica Morrow; Carolyn Runowicz; Kathleen I Pritchard; Karen Hagerty; Banu Arun; Judy Garber; Victor G Vogel; James L Wade; Powel Brown; Jack Cuzick; Barnett S Kramer; Scott M Lippman
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-05-26       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  Assessment of clinical validity of a breast cancer risk model combining genetic and clinical information.

Authors:  Matthew E Mealiffe; Renee P Stokowski; Brian K Rhees; Ross L Prentice; Mary Pettinger; David A Hinds
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2010-10-18       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  One statistical test is sufficient for assessing new predictive markers.

Authors:  Andrew J Vickers; Angel M Cronin; Colin B Begg
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2011-01-28       Impact factor: 4.615

View more
  19 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  Net reclassification improvement: a link between statistics and clinical practice.

Authors:  Maarten J G Leening; Nancy R Cook
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2013-01-05       Impact factor: 8.082

4.  Pencina et al. respond to "The incremental value of new markers" and "Clinically relevant measures? A note of caution".

Authors:  Michael J Pencina; Ralph B D'Agostino; Olga V Demler; A Cecile J W Janssens; Philip Greenland
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2012-08-08       Impact factor: 4.897

5.  Clinical utility in evaluation of risk models.

Authors:  Sholom Wacholder
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2012-08-08       Impact factor: 4.897

6.  Single Measurements of Carboxy-Terminal Fibroblast Growth Factor 23 and Clinical Risk Prediction of Adverse Outcomes in CKD.

Authors:  Daniel Edmonston; Daniel Wojdyla; Rupal Mehta; Xuan Cai; Claudia Lora; Debbie Cohen; Raymond R Townsend; Jiang He; Alan S Go; John Kusek; Matthew R Weir; Tamara Isakova; Michael Pencina; Myles Wolf
Journal:  Am J Kidney Dis       Date:  2019-08-21       Impact factor: 8.860

7.  Early pregnancy prediction of gestational diabetes mellitus risk using prenatal screening biomarkers in nulliparous women.

Authors:  Brittney M Snyder; Rebecca J Baer; Scott P Oltman; Jennifer G Robinson; Patrick J Breheny; Audrey F Saftlas; Wei Bao; Andrea L Greiner; Knute D Carter; Larry Rand; Laura L Jelliffe-Pawlowski; Kelli K Ryckman
Journal:  Diabetes Res Clin Pract       Date:  2020-04-06       Impact factor: 5.602

8.  Simpson's paradox in the integrated discrimination improvement.

Authors:  J Chipman; D Braun
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2016-01-05       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 9.  Cardiovascular disease risk prediction in women: is there a role for novel biomarkers?

Authors:  Nina P Paynter; Brendan M Everett; Nancy R Cook
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  2013-10-07       Impact factor: 8.327

10.  Complex signals bioinformatics: evaluation of heart rate characteristics monitoring as a novel risk marker for neonatal sepsis.

Authors:  Douglas E Lake; Karen D Fairchild; J Randall Moorman
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2013-11-19       Impact factor: 2.502

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.