Literature DB >> 23592716

Two-stage sampling designs for external validation of personal risk models.

Alice S Whittemore1, Jerry Halpern2.   

Abstract

We propose a cost-effective sampling design and estimating procedure for validating personal risk models using right-censored cohort data. Validation involves using each subject's covariates, as ascertained at cohort entry, in a risk model (specified independently of the data) to assign him/her a probability of an adverse outcome within a future time period. Subjects are then grouped according to the magnitudes of their assigned risks, and within each group, the mean assigned risk is compared with the probability of outcome occurrence as estimated using the follow-up data. Such validation presents two complications. First, in the presence of right-censoring, estimating the probability of developing the outcomes before death requires competing risk analysis. Second, for rare outcomes, validation using the full cohort requires assembling covariates and assigning risks to thousands of subjects. This can be costly when some covariates involve analyzing biological specimens. A two-stage sampling design addresses this problem by assembling covariates and assigning risks only to those subjects most informative for estimating key parameters. We use this design to estimate the outcome probabilities needed to evaluate model performance and we provide theoretical and bootstrap estimates of their variances. We also describe how to choose two-stage designs with minimal efficiency loss for a parameter of interest when the quantities determining optimality are unknown at the time of design. We illustrate these methods by using subjects in the California Teachers Study to validate ovarian cancer risk models. We find that a design with optimal efficiency for one performance parameter need not be so for others, and trade-offs will be required. A two-stage design that samples all outcome-positive subjects and more outcome-negative than censored subjects will perform well in most circumstances. The methods are implemented in Risk Model Assessment Program, an R program freely available at http://med.stanford.edu/epidemiology/two-stage.html.
© The Author(s), 2013.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bootstrap; calibration; competing risks; discrimination; personal risk models; two-stage sampling

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23592716      PMCID: PMC3971015          DOI: 10.1177/0962280213480420

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res        ISSN: 0962-2802            Impact factor:   3.021


  16 in total

1.  Non-parametric confidence interval estimation for competing risks analysis: application to contraceptive data.

Authors:  Jahar B Choudhury
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2002-04-30       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  High breast cancer incidence rates among California teachers: results from the California Teachers Study (United States).

Authors:  Leslie Bernstein; Mark Allen; Hoda Anton-Culver; Dennis Deapen; Pamela L Horn-Ross; David Peel; Richard Pinder; Peggy Reynolds; Jane Sullivan-Halley; Dee West; William Wright; Al Ziogas; Ronald K Ross
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 2.506

3.  Likelihood analysis of multi-state models for disease incidence and mortality.

Authors:  J D Kalbfleisch; J F Lawless
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1988 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  Evaluating health risk models.

Authors:  Alice S Whittemore
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2010-10-15       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  Validation of the Gail et al. model of breast cancer risk prediction and implications for chemoprevention.

Authors:  B Rockhill; D Spiegelman; C Byrne; D J Hunter; G A Colditz
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2001-03-07       Impact factor: 13.506

6.  The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.

Authors:  J A Hanley; B J McNeil
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1982-04       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Validation studies for models projecting the risk of invasive and total breast cancer incidence.

Authors:  J P Costantino; M H Gail; D Pee; S Anderson; C K Redmond; J Benichou; H S Wieand
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1999-09-15       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  Determining carrier probabilities for breast cancer-susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2.

Authors:  G Parmigiani; D Berry; O Aguilar
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1998-01       Impact factor: 11.025

9.  Assessing the value of risk predictions by using risk stratification tables.

Authors:  Holly Janes; Margaret S Pepe; Wen Gu
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2008-11-18       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  Systematic evaluation of candidate blood markers for detecting ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Chana Palmer; Xiaobo Duan; Sarah Hawley; Nathalie Scholler; Jason D Thorpe; Rob A Sahota; May Q Wong; Andrew Wray; Lindsay A Bergan; Charles W Drescher; Martin W McIntosh; Patrick O Brown; Brad H Nelson; Nicole Urban
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2008-07-09       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  7 in total

1.  Assessing the goodness of fit of personal risk models.

Authors:  Gail Gong; Anne S Quante; Mary Beth Terry; Alice S Whittemore
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2014-04-22       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  Predicting Prostate Cancer Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy.

Authors:  Abra Jeffers; Vanessa Sochat; Michael W Kattan; Changhong Yu; Erin Melcon; Kosj Yamoah; Timothy R Rebbeck; Alice S Whittemore
Journal:  Prostate       Date:  2016-10-24       Impact factor: 4.104

3.  Comprehensive epithelial tubo-ovarian cancer risk prediction model incorporating genetic and epidemiological risk factors.

Authors:  Andrew Lee; Xin Yang; Jonathan Tyrer; Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj; Andy Ryan; Nasim Mavaddat; Alex P Cunningham; Tim Carver; Stephanie Archer; Goska Leslie; Jatinder Kalsi; Faiza Gaba; Ranjit Manchanda; Simon Gayther; Susan J Ramus; Fiona M Walter; Marc Tischkowitz; Ian Jacobs; Usha Menon; Douglas F Easton; Paul Pharoah; Antonis C Antoniou
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  2021-11-29       Impact factor: 5.941

4.  Validation of the IBIS breast cancer risk evaluator for women with lobular carcinoma in-situ.

Authors:  Louisa Lisa Lo; Roger Laughlin Milne; Yuyan Liao; Jack Cuzick; Mary Beth Terry; Kelly-Anne Phillips
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2018-06-21       Impact factor: 7.640

5.  iCARE: An R package to build, validate and apply absolute risk models.

Authors:  Parichoy Pal Choudhury; Paige Maas; Amber Wilcox; William Wheeler; Mark Brook; David Check; Montserrat Garcia-Closas; Nilanjan Chatterjee
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-02-05       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Prospective Evaluation of the Addition of Polygenic Risk Scores to Breast Cancer Risk Models.

Authors:  Sherly X Li; Roger L Milne; Tu Nguyen-Dumont; Xiaochuan Wang; Dallas R English; Graham G Giles; Melissa C Southey; Antonis C Antoniou; Andrew Lee; Shuai Li; Ingrid Winship; John L Hopper; Mary Beth Terry; Robert J MacInnis
Journal:  JNCI Cancer Spectr       Date:  2021-03-02

7.  Practical problems with clinical guidelines for breast cancer prevention based on remaining lifetime risk.

Authors:  Anne S Quante; Alice S Whittemore; Tom Shriver; John L Hopper; Konstantin Strauch; Mary Beth Terry
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2015-05-08       Impact factor: 13.506

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.