Literature DB >> 23179629

Assessing improvement in disease prediction using net reclassification improvement: impact of risk cut-offs and number of risk categories.

Kristin Mühlenbruch1, Alexandros Heraclides, Ewout W Steyerberg, Hans-Georg Joost, Heiner Boeing, Matthias B Schulze.   

Abstract

Net reclassification improvement (NRI) has received much attention for comparing risk prediction models, and might be preferable over the area under the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve to indicate changes in predictive ability. We investigated the influence of the choice of risk cut-offs and number of risk categories on the NRI. Using data of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition-Potsdam study, three diabetes prediction models were compared according to ROC area and NRI with varying cut-offs for two and three risk categories and varying numbers of risk categories. When compared with a basic model, including age, anthropometry, and hypertension status, a model extension by waist circumference improved discrimination from 0.720 to 0.831 (0.111 [0.097-0.125]) while increase in ROC-AUC from 0.831 to 0.836 (0.006 [0.002-0.009]) indicated moderate improvement when additionally considering diet and physical activity. However, NRI based on these two model comparisons varied with varying cut-offs for two (range: 5.59-23.20%; -0.79 to 4.09%) and three risk categories (20.37-40.15%; 1.22-4.34%). This variation was more pronounced in the model extension showing a larger difference in ROC-AUC. NRI increased with increasing numbers of categories from minimum NRIs of 18.41 and 0.46% to approximately category-free NRIs of 79.61 and 19.22%, but not monotonically. There was a similar pattern for this increase in both model comparisons. In conclusion, the choice of risk cut-offs and number of categories has a substantial impact on NRI. A limited number of categories should only be used if categories have strong clinical importance.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23179629     DOI: 10.1007/s10654-012-9744-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol        ISSN: 0393-2990            Impact factor:   8.082


  30 in total

Review 1.  Recruitment procedures of EPIC-Germany. European Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition.

Authors:  H Boeing; A Korfmann; M M Bergmann
Journal:  Ann Nutr Metab       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 3.374

2.  Improvement of risk prediction by genomic profiling: reclassification measures versus the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve.

Authors:  Raluca Mihaescu; Moniek van Zitteren; Mandy van Hoek; Eric J G Sijbrands; André G Uitterlinden; Jacqueline C M Witteman; Albert Hofman; M G Myriam Hunink; Cornelia M van Duijn; A Cecile J W Janssens
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2010-06-18       Impact factor: 4.897

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.  Simple scoring scheme for calculating the risk of acute coronary events based on the 10-year follow-up of the prospective cardiovascular Münster (PROCAM) study.

Authors:  Gerd Assmann; Paul Cullen; Helmut Schulte
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2002-01-22       Impact factor: 29.690

5.  Use of reclassification for assessment of improved prediction: an empirical evaluation.

Authors:  Ioanna Tzoulaki; George Liberopoulos; John P A Ioannidis
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2011-02-16       Impact factor: 7.196

6.  [Performance measures for prediction models and markers: evaluation of predictions and classifications].

Authors:  Ewout W Steyerberg; Ben Van Calster; Michael J Pencina
Journal:  Rev Esp Cardiol       Date:  2011-07-16       Impact factor: 4.753

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.  Misuse of DeLong test to compare AUCs for nested models.

Authors:  Olga V Demler; Michael J Pencina; Ralph B D'Agostino
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2012-03-13       Impact factor: 2.373

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.  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

View more
  10 in total

1.  The Rotterdam Study: 2016 objectives and design update.

Authors:  Albert Hofman; Guy G O Brusselle; Sarwa Darwish Murad; Cornelia M van Duijn; Oscar H Franco; André Goedegebure; M Arfan Ikram; Caroline C W Klaver; Tamar E C Nijsten; Robin P Peeters; Bruno H Ch Stricker; Henning W Tiemeier; André G Uitterlinden; Meike W Vernooij
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2015-09-19       Impact factor: 8.082

Review 2.  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

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

Review 4.  Developing risk prediction models for kidney injury and assessing incremental value for novel biomarkers.

Authors:  Kathleen F Kerr; Allison Meisner; Heather Thiessen-Philbrook; Steven G Coca; Chirag R Parikh
Journal:  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2014-05-22       Impact factor: 8.237

5.  Performance of the Net Reclassification Improvement for Nonnested Models and a Novel Percentile-Based Alternative.

Authors:  Shannon B McKearnan; Julian Wolfson; David M Vock; Gabriela Vazquez-Benitez; Patrick J O'Connor
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2018-06-01       Impact factor: 4.897

6.  Risk categorization for calculating net reclassification improvement.

Authors:  Mitsuyoshi Takahara; Naoto Katakami; Hideaki Kaneto; Iichiro Shimomura
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2013-07-10       Impact factor: 8.082

7.  Reconsidering lactate as a sepsis risk biomarker.

Authors:  John L Moran; John Santamaria
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-10-03       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  A methodology review on the incremental prognostic value of computed tomography biomarkers in addition to Framingham risk score in predicting cardiovascular disease: the use of association, discrimination and reclassification.

Authors:  Chun Lap Pang; Nicola Pilkington; Yinghui Wei; Jaime Peters; Carl Roobottom; Chris Hyde
Journal:  BMC Cardiovasc Disord       Date:  2018-02-21       Impact factor: 2.298

9.  The value of genetic information for diabetes risk prediction - differences according to sex, age, family history and obesity.

Authors:  Kristin Mühlenbruch; Charlotte Jeppesen; Hans-Georg Joost; Heiner Boeing; Matthias B Schulze
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-05-20       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Reclassification of genetic-based risk predictions as GWAS data accumulate.

Authors:  Joel Krier; Richard Barfield; Robert C Green; Peter Kraft
Journal:  Genome Med       Date:  2016-02-17       Impact factor: 11.117

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.