Literature DB >> 28399375

Understanding the Value of Individualized Information: The Impact of Poor Calibration or Discrimination in Outcome Prediction Models.

Natalia Olchanski1, Joshua T Cohen1, Peter J Neumann1, John B Wong1,2, David M Kent1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Risk prediction models allow for the incorporation of individualized risk and clinical effectiveness information to identify patients for whom therapy is most appropriate and cost-effective. This approach has the potential to identify inefficient (or harmful) care in subgroups at different risks, even when the overall results appear favorable. Here, we explore the value of personalized risk information and the factors that influence it.
METHODS: Using an expected value of individualized care (EVIC) framework, which monetizes the value of customizing care, we developed a general approach to calculate individualized incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) as a function of individual outcome risk. For a case study (tPA v. streptokinase to treat possible myocardial infarction), we used a simulation to explore how an EVIC is influenced by population outcome prevalence, model discrimination (c-statistic) and calibration, and willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds.
RESULTS: In our simulations, for well-calibrated models, which do not over- or underestimate predicted v. observed event risk, the EVIC ranged from $0 to $700 per person, with better discrimination (higher c-statistic values) yielding progressively higher EVIC values. For miscalibrated models, the EVIC ranged from -$600 to $600 in different simulated scenarios. The EVIC values decreased as discrimination improved from a c-statistic of 0.5 to 0.6, before becoming positive as the c-statistic reached values of ~0.8.
CONCLUSIONS: Individualizing treatment decisions using risk may produce substantial value but also has the potential for net harm. Good model calibration ensures a non-negative EVIC. Improvements in discrimination generally increase the EVIC; however, when models are miscalibrated, greater discriminating power can paradoxically reduce the EVIC under some circumstances.

Entities:  

Keywords:  group decision making; outcomes research; quality of care; translating research into practice

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28399375      PMCID: PMC5577366          DOI: 10.1177/0272989X17704855

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  44 in total

1.  A trial of the beta-blocker bucindolol in patients with advanced chronic heart failure.

Authors:  Eric J Eichhorn; Michael J Domanski; Heidi Krause-Steinrauf; Michael R Bristow; Philip W Lavori
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2001-05-31       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Value of information on preference heterogeneity and individualized care.

Authors:  Anirban Basu; David Meltzer
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2007 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.583

3.  Limitations of applying summary results of clinical trials to individual patients: the need for risk stratification.

Authors:  David M Kent; Rodney A Hayward
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2007-09-12       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Evidence-based medicine, heterogeneity of treatment effects, and the trouble with averages.

Authors:  Richard L Kravitz; Naihua Duan; Joel Braslow
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 4.911

5.  Prevention of stroke by antihypertensive drug treatment in older persons with isolated systolic hypertension. Final results of the Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program (SHEP). SHEP Cooperative Research Group.

Authors: 
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1991-06-26       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Comparison of invasive and conservative strategies after treatment with intravenous tissue plasminogen activator in acute myocardial infarction. Results of the thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) phase II trial.

Authors: 
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1989-03-09       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Five-year findings of the hypertension detection and follow-up program. I. Reduction in mortality of persons with high blood pressure, including mild hypertension. Hypertension Detection and Follow-up Program Cooperative Group.

Authors: 
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1979-12-07       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  An independently derived and validated predictive model for selecting patients with myocardial infarction who are likely to benefit from tissue plasminogen activator compared with streptokinase.

Authors:  David M Kent; Rodney A Hayward; John L Griffith; Sandeep Vijan; Joni R Beshansky; Robert M Califf; Harry P Selker
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  2002-08-01       Impact factor: 4.965

9.  Cost effectiveness of thrombolytic therapy with tissue plasminogen activator as compared with streptokinase for acute myocardial infarction.

Authors:  D B Mark; M A Hlatky; R M Califf; C D Naylor; K L Lee; P W Armstrong; G Barbash; H White; M L Simoons; C L Nelson
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1995-05-25       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  Individualized cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  John P A Ioannidis; Alan M Garber
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2011-07-12       Impact factor: 11.069

View more
  4 in total

1.  Performance of the UKPDS Outcomes Model 2 for Predicting Death and Cardiovascular Events in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus from a German Population-Based Cohort.

Authors:  Michael Laxy; Verena Maria Schöning; Christoph Kurz; Rolf Holle; Annette Peters; Christa Meisinger; Wolfgang Rathmann; Kristin Mühlenbruch; Katharina Kähm
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 2.  Reporting and Interpreting Decision Curve Analysis: A Guide for Investigators.

Authors:  Ben Van Calster; Laure Wynants; Jan F M Verbeek; Jan Y Verbakel; Evangelia Christodoulou; Andrew J Vickers; Monique J Roobol; Ewout W Steyerberg
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2018-09-19       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 3.  Tufts PACE Clinical Predictive Model Registry: update 1990 through 2015.

Authors:  Benjamin S Wessler; Jessica Paulus; Christine M Lundquist; Muhammad Ajlan; Zuhair Natto; William A Janes; Nitin Jethmalani; Gowri Raman; Jennifer S Lutz; David M Kent
Journal:  Diagn Progn Res       Date:  2017-12-21

4.  Generalizability of Cardiovascular Disease Clinical Prediction Models: 158 Independent External Validations of 104 Unique Models.

Authors:  Gaurav Gulati; Jenica Upshaw; Benjamin S Wessler; Riley J Brazil; Jason Nelson; David van Klaveren; Christine M Lundquist; Jinny G Park; Hannah McGinnes; Ewout W Steyerberg; Ben Van Calster; David M Kent
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes       Date:  2022-03-31
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.