Literature DB >> 24353130

Reclassification of predictions for uncovering subgroup specific improvement.

Swati Biswas1, Banu Arun, Giovanni Parmigiani.   

Abstract

Risk prediction models play an important role in prevention and treatment of several diseases. Models that are in clinical use are often refined and improved. In many instances, the most efficient way to improve a successful model is to identify subgroups for which there is a specific biological rationale for improvement and tailor the improved model to individuals in these subgroups, an approach especially in line with personalized medicine. At present, we lack statistical tools to evaluate improvements targeted to specific subgroups. Here, we propose simple tools to fill this gap. First, we extend a recently proposed measure, the Integrated Discrimination Improvement, using a linear model with covariates representing the subgroups. Next, we develop graphical and numerical tools that compare reclassification of two models, focusing only on those subjects for whom the two models reclassify differently. We apply these approaches to BRCAPRO, a genetic risk prediction model for breast and ovarian cancer, using data from MD Anderson Cancer Center. We also conduct a simulation study to investigate properties of the new reclassification measure and compare it with currently used measures. Our results show that the proposed tools can successfully uncover subgroup specific model improvements.
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  BRCAPRO; Integrated Discrimination Improvement; breast cancer; reclassification methods; risk prediction

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24353130      PMCID: PMC4008681          DOI: 10.1002/sim.6077

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  19 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  A note on the evaluation of novel biomarkers: do not rely on integrated discrimination improvement and net reclassification index.

Authors:  Jørgen Hilden; Thomas A Gerds
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2013-04-02       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  BRCAPRO validation, sensitivity of genetic testing of BRCA1/BRCA2, and prevalence of other breast cancer susceptibility genes.

Authors:  Donald A Berry; Edwin S Iversen; Daniel F Gudbjartsson; Elaine H Hiller; Judy E Garber; Beth N Peshkin; Caryn Lerman; Patrice Watson; Henry T Lynch; Susan G Hilsenbeck; Wendy S Rubinstein; Kevin S Hughes; Giovanni Parmigiani
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2002-06-01       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  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

6.  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

7.  Prediction of germline mutations and cancer risk in the Lynch syndrome.

Authors:  Sining Chen; Wenyi Wang; Shing Lee; Khedoudja Nafa; Johanna Lee; Kathy Romans; Patrice Watson; Stephen B Gruber; David Euhus; Kenneth W Kinzler; Jeremy Jass; Steven Gallinger; Noralane M Lindor; Graham Casey; Nathan Ellis; Francis M Giardiello; Kenneth Offit; Giovanni Parmigiani
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2006-09-27       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  General cardiovascular risk profile for use in primary care: the Framingham Heart Study.

Authors:  Ralph B D'Agostino; Ramachandran S Vasan; Michael J Pencina; Philip A Wolf; Mark Cobain; Joseph M Massaro; William B Kannel
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2008-01-22       Impact factor: 29.690

9.  Incorporating medical interventions into carrier probability estimation for genetic counseling.

Authors:  Hormuzd A Katki
Journal:  BMC Med Genet       Date:  2007-03-22       Impact factor: 2.103

10.  Incorporating tumor immunohistochemical markers in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carrier prediction.

Authors:  Yu Chuan Tai; Sining Chen; Giovanni Parmigiani; Alison P Klein
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2008-03-20       Impact factor: 6.466

View more
  3 in total

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

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

2.  Evaluating surrogate endpoints, prognostic markers, and predictive markers: Some simple themes.

Authors:  Stuart G Baker; Barnett S Kramer
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2014-11-10       Impact factor: 2.486

3.  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

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.