Literature DB >> 23358916

Estimating improvement in prediction with matched case-control designs.

Aasthaa Bansal1, Margaret Sullivan Pepe.   

Abstract

When an existing risk prediction model is not sufficiently predictive, additional variables are sought for inclusion in the model. This paper addresses study designs to evaluate the improvement in prediction performance that is gained by adding a new predictor to a risk prediction model. We consider studies that measure the new predictor in a case-control subset of the study cohort, a practice that is common in biomarker research. We ask if matching controls to cases in regards to baseline predictors improves efficiency. A variety of measures of prediction performance are studied. We find through simulation studies that matching improves the efficiency with which most measures are estimated, but can reduce efficiency for some. Efficiency gains are less when more controls per case are included in the study. A method that models the distribution of the new predictor in controls appears to improve estimation efficiency considerably.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23358916      PMCID: PMC3664641          DOI: 10.1007/s10985-012-9237-1

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


  29 in total

1.  An updated coronary risk profile. A statement for health professionals.

Authors:  K M Anderson; P W Wilson; P M Odell; W B Kannel
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  1991-01       Impact factor: 29.690

2.  Biases introduced by choosing controls to match risk factors of cases in biomarker research.

Authors:  Margaret Sullivan Pepe; Jing Fan; Christopher W Seymour; Christopher Li; Ying Huang; Ziding Feng
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  2012-06-22       Impact factor: 8.327

3.  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

4.  The threshold approach to clinical decision making.

Authors:  S G Pauker; J P Kassirer
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1980-05-15       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Testing for improvement in prediction model performance.

Authors:  Margaret Sullivan Pepe; Kathleen F Kerr; Gary Longton; Zheyu Wang
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2013-01-07       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  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

7.  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

8.  A clinical prediction rule for renal artery stenosis.

Authors:  P Krijnen; B C van Jaarsveld; E W Steyerberg; A J Man in 't Veld; M A Schalekamp; J D Habbema
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1998-11-01       Impact factor: 25.391

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.  Pivotal evaluation of the accuracy of a biomarker used for classification or prediction: standards for study design.

Authors:  Margaret S Pepe; Ziding Feng; Holly Janes; Patrick M Bossuyt; John D Potter
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2008-10-07       Impact factor: 13.506

View more
  6 in total

1.  Protein biomarkers for the prediction of cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes.

Authors:  Helen C Looker; Marco Colombo; Felix Agakov; Tanja Zeller; Leif Groop; Barbara Thorand; Colin N Palmer; Anders Hamsten; Ulf de Faire; Everson Nogoceke; Shona J Livingstone; Veikko Salomaa; Karin Leander; Nicola Barbarini; Riccardo Bellazzi; Natalie van Zuydam; Paul M McKeigue; Helen M Colhoun
Journal:  Diabetologia       Date:  2015-03-05       Impact factor: 10.122

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.  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

4.  Blood-Based Biomarker Panel for Personalized Lung Cancer Risk Assessment.

Authors:  Johannes F Fahrmann; Tracey Marsh; Ehsan Irajizad; Nikul Patel; Eunice Murage; Jody Vykoukal; Jennifer B Dennison; Kim-Anh Do; Edwin Ostrin; Margaret R Spitz; Stephen Lam; Sanjay Shete; Rafael Meza; Martin C Tammemägi; Ziding Feng; Samir M Hanash
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2022-01-07       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  More Accurate Oral Cancer Screening with Fewer Salivary Biomarkers.

Authors:  James Michael Menke; Md Shahidul Ahsan; Suan Phaik Khoo
Journal:  Biomark Cancer       Date:  2017-10-17

6.  Epigenome-wide discovery and evaluation of leukocyte DNA methylation markers for the detection of colorectal cancer in a screening setting.

Authors:  Jonathan Alexander Heiss; Hermann Brenner
Journal:  Clin Epigenetics       Date:  2017-03-03       Impact factor: 6.551

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.