Literature DB >> 27251001

A new concordance measure for risk prediction models in external validation settings.

David van Klaveren1, Mithat Gönen2, Ewout W Steyerberg1, Yvonne Vergouwe1.   

Abstract

Concordance measures are frequently used for assessing the discriminative ability of risk prediction models. The interpretation of estimated concordance at external validation is difficult if the case-mix differs from the model development setting. We aimed to develop a concordance measure that provides insight into the influence of case-mix heterogeneity and is robust to censoring of time-to-event data. We first derived a model-based concordance (mbc) measure that allows for quantification of the influence of case-mix heterogeneity on discriminative ability of proportional hazards and logistic regression models. This mbc can also be calculated including a regression slope that calibrates the predictions at external validation (c-mbc), hence assessing the influence of overall regression coefficient validity on discriminative ability. We derived variance formulas for both mbc and c-mbc. We compared the mbc and the c-mbc with commonly used concordance measures in a simulation study and in two external validation settings. The mbc was asymptotically equivalent to a previously proposed resampling-based case-mix corrected c-index. The c-mbc remained stable at the true value with increasing proportions of censoring, while Harrell's c-index and to a lesser extent Uno's concordance measure increased unfavorably. Variance estimates of mbc and c-mbc were well in agreement with the simulated empirical variances. We conclude that the mbc is an attractive closed-form measure that allows for a straightforward quantification of the expected change in a model's discriminative ability due to case-mix heterogeneity. The c-mbc also reflects regression coefficient validity and is a censoring-robust alternative for the c-index when the proportional hazards assumption holds.
Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  case-mix heterogeneity; censoring; concordance; discrimination; logistic regression; proportional hazards regression

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27251001      PMCID: PMC5550798          DOI: 10.1002/sim.6997

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


  18 in total

1.  External validity of risk models: Use of benchmark values to disentangle a case-mix effect from incorrect coefficients.

Authors:  Yvonne Vergouwe; Karel G M Moons; Ewout W Steyerberg
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2010-08-31       Impact factor: 4.897

2.  Coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with three-vessel disease and left main coronary disease: 5-year follow-up of the randomised, clinical SYNTAX trial.

Authors:  Friedrich W Mohr; Marie-Claude Morice; A Pieter Kappetein; Ted E Feldman; Elisabeth Ståhle; Antonio Colombo; Michael J Mack; David R Holmes; Marie-angèle Morel; Nic Van Dyck; Vicki M Houle; Keith D Dawkins; Patrick W Serruys
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2013-02-23       Impact factor: 79.321

3.  Interpretation of concordance measures for clustered data.

Authors:  David van Klaveren; Ewout W Steyerberg; Yvonne Vergouwe
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2014-02-20       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  On the C-statistics for evaluating overall adequacy of risk prediction procedures with censored survival data.

Authors:  Hajime Uno; Tianxi Cai; Michael J Pencina; Ralph B D'Agostino; L J Wei
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2011-01-13       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  Evaluating the yield of medical tests.

Authors:  F E Harrell; R M Califf; D B Pryor; K L Lee; R A Rosati
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1982-05-14       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Assessing the performance of prediction models: a framework for traditional and novel measures.

Authors:  Ewout W Steyerberg; Andrew J Vickers; Nancy R Cook; Thomas Gerds; Mithat Gonen; Nancy Obuchowski; Michael J Pencina; Michael W Kattan
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 4.822

7.  A multicenter trial on the efficacy of using tirilazad mesylate in cases of head injury.

Authors:  L F Marshall; A I Maas; S B Marshall; A Bricolo; M Fearnside; F Iannotti; M R Klauber; J Lagarrigue; R Lobato; L Persson; J D Pickard; J Piek; F Servadei; G N Wellis; G F Morris; E D Means; B Musch
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 5.115

8.  Predictive Performance of SYNTAX Score II in Patients With Left Main and Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease-analysis of CREDO-Kyoto registry.

Authors:  Carlos M Campos; David van Klaveren; Javaid Iqbal; Yoshinobu Onuma; Yao-Jun Zhang; Hector M Garcia-Garcia; Marie-Angele Morel; Vasim Farooq; Hiroki Shiomi; Yutaka Furukawa; Yoshihisa Nakagawa; Kazushige Kadota; Pedro A Lemos; Takeshi Kimura; Ewout W Steyerberg; Patrick W Serruys
Journal:  Circ J       Date:  2014-07-07       Impact factor: 2.993

9.  External validation of a Cox prognostic model: principles and methods.

Authors:  Patrick Royston; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2013-03-06       Impact factor: 4.615

10.  Predicting outcome after traumatic brain injury: development and international validation of prognostic scores based on admission characteristics.

Authors:  Ewout W Steyerberg; Nino Mushkudiani; Pablo Perel; Isabella Butcher; Juan Lu; Gillian S McHugh; Gordon D Murray; Anthony Marmarou; Ian Roberts; J Dik F Habbema; Andrew I R Maas
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2008-08-05       Impact factor: 11.069

View more
  14 in total

1.  Evaluating disease prediction models using a cohort whose covariate distribution differs from that of the target population.

Authors:  Scott Powers; Valerie McGuire; Leslie Bernstein; Alison J Canchola; Alice S Whittemore
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2017-08-16       Impact factor: 3.021

2.  A framework for meta-analysis of prediction model studies with binary and time-to-event outcomes.

Authors:  Thomas Pa Debray; Johanna Aag Damen; Richard D Riley; Kym Snell; Johannes B Reitsma; Lotty Hooft; Gary S Collins; Karel Gm Moons
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2018-07-23       Impact factor: 3.021

3.  The Predictive Approaches to Treatment effect Heterogeneity (PATH) Statement: Explanation and Elaboration.

Authors:  David M Kent; David van Klaveren; Jessica K Paulus; Ralph D'Agostino; Steve Goodman; Rodney Hayward; John P A Ioannidis; Bray Patrick-Lake; Sally Morton; Michael Pencina; Gowri Raman; Joseph S Ross; Harry P Selker; Ravi Varadhan; Andrew Vickers; John B Wong; Ewout W Steyerberg
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2019-11-12       Impact factor: 25.391

4.  Kidney Failure Prediction Models: A Comprehensive External Validation Study in Patients with Advanced CKD.

Authors:  Chava L Ramspek; Marie Evans; Christoph Wanner; Christiane Drechsler; Nicholas C Chesnaye; Maciej Szymczak; Magdalena Krajewska; Claudia Torino; Gaetana Porto; Samantha Hayward; Fergus Caskey; Friedo W Dekker; Kitty J Jager; Merel van Diepen
Journal:  J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2021-03-08       Impact factor: 10.121

5.  Meta-analysis of prediction model performance across multiple studies: Which scale helps ensure between-study normality for the C-statistic and calibration measures?

Authors:  Kym Ie Snell; Joie Ensor; Thomas Pa Debray; Karel Gm Moons; Richard D Riley
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2017-05-08       Impact factor: 3.021

6.  The calibrated model-based concordance improved assessment of discriminative ability in patient clusters of limited sample size.

Authors:  David van Klaveren; Ewout W Steyerberg; Mithat Gönen; Yvonne Vergouwe
Journal:  Diagn Progn Res       Date:  2019-06-06

Review 7.  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 8.  Untapped potential of multicenter studies: a review of cardiovascular risk prediction models revealed inappropriate analyses and wide variation in reporting.

Authors:  L Wynants; D M Kent; D Timmerman; C M Lundquist; B Van Calster
Journal:  Diagn Progn Res       Date:  2019-02-22

9.  Identifying unreliable predictions in clinical risk models.

Authors:  Paul D Myers; Kenney Ng; Kristen Severson; Uri Kartoun; Wangzhi Dai; Wei Huang; Frederick A Anderson; Collin M Stultz
Journal:  NPJ Digit Med       Date:  2020-01-23

10.  Development and Reporting of Prediction Models: Guidance for Authors From Editors of Respiratory, Sleep, and Critical Care Journals.

Authors:  Daniel E Leisman; Michael O Harhay; David J Lederer; Michael Abramson; Alex A Adjei; Jan Bakker; Zuhair K Ballas; Esther Barreiro; Scott C Bell; Rinaldo Bellomo; Jonathan A Bernstein; Richard D Branson; Vito Brusasco; James D Chalmers; Sudhansu Chokroverty; Giuseppe Citerio; Nancy A Collop; Colin R Cooke; James D Crapo; Gavin Donaldson; Dominic A Fitzgerald; Emma Grainger; Lauren Hale; Felix J Herth; Patrick M Kochanek; Guy Marks; J Randall Moorman; David E Ost; Michael Schatz; Aziz Sheikh; Alan R Smyth; Iain Stewart; Paul W Stewart; Erik R Swenson; Ronald Szymusiak; Jean-Louis Teboul; Jean-Louis Vincent; Jadwiga A Wedzicha; David M Maslove
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2020-05       Impact factor: 7.598

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.