Literature DB >> 23242535

Understanding increments in model performance metrics.

Michael J Pencina1, Ralph B D'Agostino, Joseph M Massaro.   

Abstract

The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) is the most commonly reported measure of discrimination for prediction models with binary outcomes. However, recently it has been criticized for its inability to increase when important risk factors are added to a baseline model with good discrimination. This has led to the claim that the reliance on the AUC as a measure of discrimination may miss important improvements in clinical performance of risk prediction rules derived from a baseline model. In this paper we investigate this claim by relating the AUC to measures of clinical performance based on sensitivity and specificity under the assumption of multivariate normality. The behavior of the AUC is contrasted with that of discrimination slope. We show that unless rules with very good specificity are desired, the change in the AUC does an adequate job as a predictor of the change in measures of clinical performance. However, stronger or more numerous predictors are needed to achieve the same increment in the AUC for baseline models with good versus poor discrimination. When excellent specificity is desired, our results suggest that the discrimination slope might be a better measure of model improvement than AUC. The theoretical results are illustrated using a Framingham Heart Study example of a model for predicting the 10-year incidence of atrial fibrillation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23242535      PMCID: PMC3656609          DOI: 10.1007/s10985-012-9238-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lifetime Data Anal        ISSN: 1380-7870            Impact factor:   1.588


  20 in total

1.  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

2.  Index for rating diagnostic tests.

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

Review 3.  Assessment of claims of improved prediction beyond the Framingham risk score.

Authors:  Ioanna Tzoulaki; George Liberopoulos; John P A Ioannidis
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2009-12-02       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Estimation of the probability of an event as a function of several independent variables.

Authors:  S H Walker; D B Duncan
Journal:  Biometrika       Date:  1967-06       Impact factor: 2.445

5.  Regret graphs, diagnostic uncertainty and Youden's Index.

Authors:  J Hilden; P Glasziou
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1996-05-30       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  Assessing the incremental value of diagnostic and prognostic markers: a review and illustration.

Authors:  Ewout W Steyerberg; Michael J Pencina; Hester F Lingsma; Michael W Kattan; Andrew J Vickers; Ben Van Calster
Journal:  Eur J Clin Invest       Date:  2011-07-05       Impact factor: 4.686

7.  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

8.  Use and misuse of the receiver operating characteristic curve in risk prediction.

Authors:  Nancy R Cook
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2007-02-20       Impact factor: 29.690

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.  Assessing the performance of prediction models: a framework for traditional and novel measures.

Authors:  Ewout W Steyerberg; Andrew J Vickers; Nancy R Cook; Thomas Gerds; Mithat Gonen; Nancy Obuchowski; Michael J Pencina; Michael W Kattan
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 4.822

View more
  14 in total

1.  Transparent Reporting on Research Using Unstructured Electronic Health Record Data to Generate 'Real World' Evidence of Comparative Effectiveness and Safety.

Authors:  Shirley V Wang; Olga V Patterson; Joshua J Gagne; Jeffrey S Brown; Robert Ball; Pall Jonsson; Adam Wright; Li Zhou; Wim Goettsch; Andrew Bate
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 5.606

2.  Six articles related to risk assessment and prediction based on work presented at the October 12–14, 2011 Conference on Risk Assessment and Evaluation of Predictions in Silver Spring, Maryland.

Authors:  Mitchell H Gail; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Tianxi Cai
Journal:  Lifetime Data Anal       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 1.588

3.  Estimating CDKN2A mutation carrier probability among global familial melanoma cases using GenoMELPREDICT.

Authors:  Nicholas J Taylor; Nandita Mitra; Lu Qian; Marie-Françoise Avril; D Timothy Bishop; Brigitte Bressac-de Paillerets; William Bruno; Donato Calista; Francisco Cuellar; Anne E Cust; Florence Demenais; David E Elder; Anne-Marie Gerdes; Paola Ghiorzo; Alisa M Goldstein; Thais C Grazziotin; Nelleke A Gruis; Johan Hansson; Mark Harland; Nicholas K Hayward; Marko Hocevar; Veronica Höiom; Elizabeth A Holland; Christian Ingvar; Maria Teresa Landi; Gilles Landman; Alejandra Larre-Borges; Graham J Mann; Eduardo Nagore; Håkan Olsson; Jane M Palmer; Barbara Perić; Dace Pjanova; Antonia L Pritchard; Susana Puig; Helen Schmid; Nienke van der Stoep; Margaret A Tucker; Karin A W Wadt; Xiaohong R Yang; Julia A Newton-Bishop; Peter A Kanetsky
Journal:  J Am Acad Dermatol       Date:  2019-02-05       Impact factor: 11.527

4.  Predicting smoking abstinence with biological and self-report measures of adherence to varenicline: Impact on pharmacogenetic trial outcomes.

Authors:  Annie R Peng; Robert Schnoll; Larry W Hawk; Paul Cinciripini; Tony P George; Caryn Lerman; Rachel F Tyndale
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Depend       Date:  2018-06-26       Impact factor: 4.492

5.  Measures for evaluation of prognostic improvement under multivariate normality for nested and nonnested models.

Authors:  Danielle M Enserro; Olga V Demler; Michael J Pencina; Ralph B D'Agostino
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2019-06-18       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  Predictive Utility of a Validated Polygenic Risk Score for Long-Term Risk of Coronary Heart Disease in Young and Middle-Aged Adults.

Authors:  Sadiya S Khan; Courtney Page; Daniel M Wojdyla; Yosef Y Schwartz; Philip Greenland; Michael J Pencina
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2022-07-26       Impact factor: 39.918

7.  Urinary neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin-guided risk assessment for major adverse kidney events after open-heart surgery.

Authors:  Christian Albert; Annemarie Albert; Rinaldo Bellomo; Siegfried Kropf; Prasad Devarajan; Sabine Westphal; Hassina Baraki; Ingo Kutschka; Christian Butter; Michael Haase; Anja Haase-Fielitz
Journal:  Biomark Med       Date:  2018-08-08       Impact factor: 2.851

8.  A novel metric that quantifies risk stratification for evaluating diagnostic tests: The example of evaluating cervical-cancer screening tests across populations.

Authors:  Hormuzd A Katki; Mark Schiffman
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2018-02-14       Impact factor: 4.018

9.  How to interpret a small increase in AUC with an additional risk prediction marker: decision analysis comes through.

Authors:  Stuart G Baker; Ewoud Schuit; Ewout W Steyerberg; Michael J Pencina; Andrew Vickers; Andew Vickers; Karel G M Moons; Ben W J Mol; Karen S Lindeman
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2014-05-13       Impact factor: 2.373

10.  High-throughput serum proteomics for the identification of protein biomarkers of mortality in older men.

Authors:  Eric S Orwoll; Jack Wiedrick; Jon Jacobs; Erin S Baker; Paul Piehowski; Vladislav Petyuk; Yuqian Gao; Tujin Shi; Richard D Smith; Douglas C Bauer; Steven R Cummings; Carrie M Nielson; Jodi Lapidus
Journal:  Aging Cell       Date:  2018-02-05       Impact factor: 9.304

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.