Literature DB >> 25042996

Graphical assessment of incremental value of novel markers in prediction models: From statistical to decision analytical perspectives.

Ewout W Steyerberg1, Moniek M Vedder1, Maarten J G Leening2,3, Douwe Postmus4, Ralph B D'Agostino5, Ben Van Calster1,6, Michael J Pencina7.   

Abstract

New markers may improve prediction of diagnostic and prognostic outcomes. We aimed to review options for graphical display and summary measures to assess the predictive value of markers over standard, readily available predictors. We illustrated various approaches using previously published data on 3264 participants from the Framingham Heart Study, where 183 developed coronary heart disease (10-year risk 5.6%). We considered performance measures for the incremental value of adding HDL cholesterol to a prediction model. An initial assessment may consider statistical significance (HR = 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.53 to 0.80; likelihood ratio p < 0.001), and distributions of predicted risks (densities or box plots) with various summary measures. A range of decision thresholds is considered in predictiveness and receiver operating characteristic curves, where the area under the curve (AUC) increased from 0.762 to 0.774 by adding HDL. We can furthermore focus on reclassification of participants with and without an event in a reclassification graph, with the continuous net reclassification improvement (NRI) as a summary measure. When we focus on one particular decision threshold, the changes in sensitivity and specificity are central. We propose a net reclassification risk graph, which allows us to focus on the number of reclassified persons and their event rates. Summary measures include the binary AUC, the two-category NRI, and decision analytic variants such as the net benefit (NB). Various graphs and summary measures can be used to assess the incremental predictive value of a marker. Important insights for impact on decision making are provided by a simple graph for the net reclassification risk.
© 2014 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Decision analysis; ROC curve; Reclassification; Regression analysis; Risk assessment

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25042996     DOI: 10.1002/bimj.201300260

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biom J        ISSN: 0323-3847            Impact factor:   2.207


  10 in total

1.  Should non-cardiovascular mortality be considered in the SCORE model? Findings from the Prevention of Renal and Vascular End-stage Disease (PREVEND) cohort.

Authors:  Biniyam G Demissei; Douwe Postmus; Mattia A Valente; Pim van der Harst; Wijk H van Gilst; Edwin R Van den Heuvel; Hans L Hillege
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2014-11-07       Impact factor: 8.082

2.  Estimates of absolute treatment benefit for individual patients required careful modeling of statistical interactions.

Authors:  David van Klaveren; Yvonne Vergouwe; Vasim Farooq; Patrick W Serruys; Ewout W Steyerberg
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2015-02-27       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 3.  Using patient self-reports to study heterogeneity of treatment effects in major depressive disorder.

Authors:  R C Kessler; H M van Loo; K J Wardenaar; R M Bossarte; L A Brenner; D D Ebert; P de Jonge; A A Nierenberg; A J Rosellini; N A Sampson; R A Schoevers; M A Wilcox; A M Zaslavsky
Journal:  Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci       Date:  2016-01-26       Impact factor: 6.892

4.  Serial measurements of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide in patients with coronary heart disease.

Authors:  Dhayana Dallmeier; Michael J Pencina; Iris Rajman; Wolfgang Koenig; Dietrich Rothenbacher; Hermann Brenner
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-01-28       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 5.  Statistical controversies in clinical research: prognostic gene signatures are not (yet) useful in clinical practice.

Authors:  S Michiels; N Ternès; F Rotolo
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2016-09-15       Impact factor: 32.976

6.  Reconsidering lactate as a sepsis risk biomarker.

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

7.  Can mid-regional pro-adrenomedullin (MR-proADM) increase the prognostic accuracy of NEWS in predicting deterioration in patients admitted to hospital with mild to moderately severe illness? A prospective single-centre observational study.

Authors:  Sara Graziadio; Rachel Amie O'Leary; Deborah D Stocken; Michael Power; A Joy Allen; A John Simpson; David Ashley Price
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-02-22       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  High-Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin I Improves Cardiovascular Risk Prediction in Older Men: HIMS (The Health in Men Study).

Authors:  Nick S R Lan; Damon A Bell; Kieran A McCaul; Samuel D Vasikaran; Bu B Yeap; Paul E Norman; Osvaldo P Almeida; Jonathan Golledge; Graeme J Hankey; Leon Flicker
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2019-03-05       Impact factor: 5.501

9.  Validation and updating of risk models based on multinomial logistic regression.

Authors:  Ben Van Calster; Kirsten Van Hoorde; Yvonne Vergouwe; Shabnam Bobdiwala; George Condous; Emma Kirk; Tom Bourne; Ewout W Steyerberg
Journal:  Diagn Progn Res       Date:  2017-02-08

10.  Blood biomarkers on admission in acute traumatic brain injury: Relations to severity, CT findings and care path in the CENTER-TBI study.

Authors:  Endre Czeiter; Krisztina Amrein; Benjamin Y Gravesteijn; Fiona Lecky; David K Menon; Stefania Mondello; Virginia F J Newcombe; Sophie Richter; Ewout W Steyerberg; Thijs Vande Vyvere; Jan Verheyden; Haiyan Xu; Zhihui Yang; Andrew I R Maas; Kevin K W Wang; András Büki
Journal:  EBioMedicine       Date:  2020-05-25       Impact factor: 8.143

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.