Literature DB >> 27699818

Discrimination slope and integrated discrimination improvement - properties, relationships and impact of calibration.

Michael J Pencina1, Jason P Fine2, Ralph B D'Agostino3.   

Abstract

Discrimination slope, defined as the slope of a linear regression of predicted probabilities of event derived from a prognostic model on the binary event status, has recently gained popularity as a measure of model performance. It is as a building block for the integrated discrimination improvement that equals the difference in discrimination slopes between the two models being compared. Several authors have pointed out that it does not make sense to apply the integrated discrimination improvement and discrimination slope when working with mis-calibrated models, whereas others have raised concerns about the ability of improving discrimination slope without adding new information. In this paper, we show that under certain assumptions the discrimination slope is asymptotically related to two other R-squared measures, one of which is a rescaled version of the Brier score, known to be proper. Furthermore, we illustrate how a simple recalibration makes the slope equal to the rescaled Brier R-squared metric. We also show that the discrimination slope can be interpreted as a measure of reduction in expected regret for the Gini-Brier regret function. Using theoretical and practical examples, we illustrate how all of these metrics are affected by different levels of model mis-calibration. In particular, we demonstrate that simple recalibration ascertaining calibration in-the-large and calibration slope equal to 1 are not sufficient to correct for some forms of mis-calibration. We conclude that R-squared metrics, including the discrimination slope, offer an attractive choice for quantifying model performance as long as one accounts for their sensitivity to model calibration.
Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords:  IDI; R-squared; model; proper; risk

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27699818     DOI: 10.1002/sim.7139

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


  16 in total

1.  Comparison of Duke Activity Status Index with cardiopulmonary exercise testing in cancer patients.

Authors:  Michael H-G Li; Vladimir Bolshinsky; Hilmy Ismail; Kwok-Ming Ho; Alexander Heriot; Bernhard Riedel
Journal:  J Anesth       Date:  2018-05-29       Impact factor: 2.078

2.  Asymptotic distribution of ∆AUC, NRIs, and IDI based on theory of U-statistics.

Authors:  Olga V Demler; Michael J Pencina; Nancy R Cook; Ralph B D'Agostino
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2017-06-19       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  First things first: risk model performance metrics should reflect the clinical application.

Authors:  Kathleen F Kerr; Holly Janes
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2017-12-10       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  Genetic Drivers of von Willebrand Factor Levels in an Ischemic Stroke Population and Association With Risk for Recurrent Stroke.

Authors:  Stephen R Williams; Fang-Chi Hsu; Keith L Keene; Wei-Min Chen; Godfrey Dzhivhuho; Joe L Rowles; Andrew M Southerland; Karen L Furie; Stephen S Rich; Bradford B Worrall; Michèle M Sale
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2017-05-11       Impact factor: 7.914

5.  Measures for evaluation of prognostic improvement under multivariate normality for nested and nonnested models.

Authors:  Danielle M Enserro; Olga V Demler; Michael J Pencina; Ralph B D'Agostino
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2019-06-18       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  Predictive Ability of European Heart Surgery Risk Assessment System II (EuroSCORE II) and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) Score for in-Hospital and Medium-Term Mortality of Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting.

Authors:  Fei Gao; Lingtong Shan; Chong Wang; Xiaoqi Meng; Jiapeng Chen; Lixiang Han; Yangyang Zhang; Zhi Li
Journal:  Int J Gen Med       Date:  2021-11-19

Review 7.  Clinical risk reclassification at 10 years.

Authors:  Nancy R Cook; Olga V Demler; Nina P Paynter
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2017-12-10       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  Kidney Biomarkers and Decline in eGFR in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes.

Authors:  Katherine G Garlo; William B White; George L Bakris; Faiez Zannad; Craig A Wilson; Stuart Kupfer; Muthiah Vaduganathan; David A Morrow; Christopher P Cannon; David M Charytan
Journal:  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2018-01-16       Impact factor: 8.237

9.  Body mass index versus bioelectrical impedance analysis for classifying physical function impairment in a racially diverse cohort of midlife women: the Study of Women's Health Across the Nation (SWAN).

Authors:  Bradley M Appelhans; Brittney S Lange-Maia; Kelley Pettee Gabriel; Carrie Karvonen-Gutierrez; Kelly Karavolos; Sheila A Dugan; Gail A Greendale; Elizabeth F Avery; Barbara Sternfeld; Imke Janssen; Howard M Kravitz
Journal:  Aging Clin Exp Res       Date:  2019-10-04       Impact factor: 3.636

10.  Estimation of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk Among Patients in the Veterans Affairs Health Care System.

Authors:  Jason L Vassy; Bing Lu; Yuk-Lam Ho; Ashley Galloway; Sridharan Raghavan; Jacqueline Honerlaw; Laura Tarko; John Russo; Saadia Qazi; Ariela R Orkaby; Vidisha Tanukonda; Luc Djousse; J Michael Gaziano; David R Gagnon; Kelly Cho; Peter W F Wilson
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2020-07-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.