Literature DB >> 27158296

EVALUATING RISK-PREDICTION MODELS USING DATA FROM ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS.

L E Wang1, Pamela A Shaw1, Hansie M Mathelier2, Stephen E Kimmel1, Benjamin French1.   

Abstract

The availability of data from electronic health records facilitates the development and evaluation of risk-prediction models, but estimation of prediction accuracy could be limited by outcome misclassification, which can arise if events are not captured. We evaluate the robustness of prediction accuracy summaries, obtained from receiver operating characteristic curves and risk-reclassification methods, if events are not captured (i.e., "false negatives"). We derive estimators for sensitivity and specificity if misclassification is independent of marker values. In simulation studies, we quantify the potential for bias in prediction accuracy summaries if misclassification depends on marker values. We compare the accuracy of alternative prognostic models for 30-day all-cause hospital readmission among 4548 patients discharged from the University of Pennsylvania Health System with a primary diagnosis of heart failure. Simulation studies indicate that if misclassification depends on marker values, then the estimated accuracy improvement is also biased, but the direction of the bias depends on the direction of the association between markers and the probability of misclassification. In our application, 29% of the 1143 readmitted patients were readmitted to a hospital elsewhere in Pennsylvania, which reduced prediction accuracy. Outcome misclassification can result in erroneous conclusions regarding the accuracy of risk-prediction models.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Outcome misclassification; ROC curves; prediction accuracy; risk reclassification

Year:  2016        PMID: 27158296      PMCID: PMC4859766          DOI: 10.1214/15-AOAS891

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Appl Stat        ISSN: 1932-6157            Impact factor:   2.083


  43 in total

1.  Accounting for data errors discovered from an audit in multiple linear regression.

Authors:  Bryan E Shepherd; Chang Yu
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2011-01-31       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  How to evaluate the calibration of a disease risk prediction tool.

Authors:  Vivian Viallon; Stéphane Ragusa; Françoise Clavel-Chapelon; Jacques Bénichou
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2009-03-15       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Reclassification calculations for persons with incomplete follow-up.

Authors:  Ewout W Steyerberg; Michael J Pencina
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2010-02-02       Impact factor: 25.391

4.  Use of health IT for higher-value critical care.

Authors:  Lena M Chen; Edward H Kennedy; Anne Sales; Timothy P Hofer
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2013-01-30       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  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

6.  The misinformation era: the fall of the medical record.

Authors:  J F Burnum
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1989-03-15       Impact factor: 25.391

7.  Misuse of DeLong test to compare AUCs for nested models.

Authors:  Olga V Demler; Michael J Pencina; Ralph B D'Agostino
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2012-03-13       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  Trends in length of stay and short-term outcomes among Medicare patients hospitalized for heart failure, 1993-2006.

Authors:  Héctor Bueno; Joseph S Ross; Yun Wang; Jersey Chen; María T Vidán; Sharon-Lise T Normand; Jeptha P Curtis; Elizabeth E Drye; Judith H Lichtman; Patricia S Keenan; Mikhail Kosiborod; Harlan M Krumholz
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2010-06-02       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  A unified inference procedure for a class of measures to assess improvement in risk prediction systems with survival data.

Authors:  Hajime Uno; Lu Tian; Tianxi Cai; Isaac S Kohane; L J Wei
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2012-10-05       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 10.  Methods and dimensions of electronic health record data quality assessment: enabling reuse for clinical research.

Authors:  Nicole Gray Weiskopf; Chunhua Weng
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2012-06-25       Impact factor: 4.497

View more
  11 in total

1.  EVALUATING RISK-PREDICTION MODELS USING DATA FROM ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS.

Authors:  L E Wang; Pamela A Shaw; Hansie M Mathelier; Stephen E Kimmel; Benjamin French
Journal:  Ann Appl Stat       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 2.083

2.  Measurement error and misclassification in electronic medical records: methods to mitigate bias.

Authors:  Jessica C Young; Mitchell M Conover; Michele Jonsson Funk
Journal:  Curr Epidemiol Rep       Date:  2018-09-10

3.  Use of administrative data to increase the practicality of clinical trials: Insights from the Women's Health Initiative.

Authors:  Garnet L Anderson; Carolyn J Burns; Joseph Larsen; Pamela A Shaw
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2016-06-30       Impact factor: 2.486

4.  Automated versus Manual Data Extraction of the Padua Prediction Score for Venous Thromboembolism Risk in Hospitalized Older Adults.

Authors:  Juliessa M Pavon; Richard J Sloane; Carl F Pieper; Cathleen S Colón-Emeric; Harvey J Cohen; David Gallagher; Miriam C Morey; Midori McCarty; Thomas L Ortel; Susan N Hastings
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2018-09-26       Impact factor: 2.342

5.  Considerations for analysis of time-to-event outcomes measured with error: Bias and correction with SIMEX.

Authors:  Eric J Oh; Bryan E Shepherd; Thomas Lumley; Pamela A Shaw
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2017-11-29       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  Raking and regression calibration: Methods to address bias from correlated covariate and time-to-event error.

Authors:  Eric J Oh; Bryan E Shepherd; Thomas Lumley; Pamela A Shaw
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2020-11-02       Impact factor: 2.373

7.  A Real-time Risk-Prediction Model for Pediatric Venous Thromboembolic Events.

Authors:  Shannon C Walker; C Buddy Creech; Henry J Domenico; Benjamin French; Daniel W Byrne; Allison P Wheeler
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2021-05-19       Impact factor: 9.703

8.  Improved generalized raking estimators to address dependent covariate and failure-time outcome error.

Authors:  Eric J Oh; Bryan E Shepherd; Thomas Lumley; Pamela A Shaw
Journal:  Biom J       Date:  2021-03-11       Impact factor: 1.715

Review 9.  Methodological standards for the development and evaluation of clinical prediction rules: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Laura E Cowley; Daniel M Farewell; Sabine Maguire; Alison M Kemp
Journal:  Diagn Progn Res       Date:  2019-08-22

Review 10.  Framework for improving outcome prediction for acute to chronic low back pain transitions.

Authors:  Steven Z George; Trevor A Lentz; Jason M Beneciuk; Nrupen A Bhavsar; Jennifer M Mundt; Jeff Boissoneault
Journal:  Pain Rep       Date:  2020-03-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.