Literature DB >> 28812439

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

Scott Powers1, Valerie McGuire2, Leslie Bernstein3, Alison J Canchola4, Alice S Whittemore2.   

Abstract

Personal predictive models for disease development play important roles in chronic disease prevention. The performance of these models is evaluated by applying them to the baseline covariates of participants in external cohort studies, with model predictions compared to subjects' subsequent disease incidence. However, the covariate distribution among participants in a validation cohort may differ from that of the population for which the model will be used. Since estimates of predictive model performance depend on the distribution of covariates among the subjects to which it is applied, such differences can cause misleading estimates of model performance in the target population. We propose a method for addressing this problem by weighting the cohort subjects to make their covariate distribution better match that of the target population. Simulations show that the method provides accurate estimates of model performance in the target population, while un-weighted estimates may not. We illustrate the method by applying it to evaluate an ovarian cancer prediction model targeted to US women, using cohort data from participants in the California Teachers Study. The methods can be implemented using open-source code for public use as the R-package RMAP (Risk Model Assessment Package) available at http://stanford.edu/~ggong/rmap/ .

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cohort selection bias; calibration; concordance; personal predictive model; weighted-as-needed

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28812439      PMCID: PMC5895541          DOI: 10.1177/0962280217723945

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res        ISSN: 0962-2802            Impact factor:   3.021


  16 in total

1.  High breast cancer incidence rates among California teachers: results from the California Teachers Study (United States).

Authors:  Leslie Bernstein; Mark Allen; Hoda Anton-Culver; Dennis Deapen; Pamela L Horn-Ross; David Peel; Richard Pinder; Peggy Reynolds; Jane Sullivan-Halley; Dee West; William Wright; Al Ziogas; Ronald K Ross
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 2.506

2.  Adjusting for selection bias in retrospective, case-control studies.

Authors:  Sara Geneletti; Sylvia Richardson; Nicky Best
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2008-05-14       Impact factor: 5.899

3.  Assessing the goodness of fit of personal risk models.

Authors:  Gail Gong; Anne S Quante; Mary Beth Terry; Alice S Whittemore
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2014-04-22       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey: sample design, 2007-2010.

Authors:  Lester R Curtin; Leyla K Mohadjer; Sylvia M Dohrmann; Deanna Kruszon-Moran; Lisa B Mirel; Margaret D Carroll; Rosemarie Hirsch; Vicki L Burt; Clifford L Johnson
Journal:  Vital Health Stat 2       Date:  2013-08

5.  National health and nutrition examination survey: analytic guidelines, 1999-2010.

Authors:  Clifford L Johnson; Ryne Paulose-Ram; Cynthia L Ogden; Margaret D Carroll; Deanna Kruszon-Moran; Sylvia M Dohrmann; Lester R Curtin
Journal:  Vital Health Stat 2       Date:  2013-09

6.  Adjustment for selection bias in observational studies with application to the analysis of autopsy data.

Authors:  S Haneuse; J Schildcrout; P Crane; J Sonnen; J Breitner; E Larson
Journal:  Neuroepidemiology       Date:  2009-01-29       Impact factor: 3.282

7.  Statistical issues in analyzing the NHANES I Epidemiologic Followup Study. Series 2: Data evaluation and methods research.

Authors:  D D Ingram; D M Makuc
Journal:  Vital Health Stat 2       Date:  1994-05

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

Authors:  David van Klaveren; Mithat Gönen; Ewout W Steyerberg; Yvonne Vergouwe
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2016-06-01       Impact factor: 2.373

9.  Predictive accuracy of novel risk factors and markers: A simulation study of the sensitivity of different performance measures for the Cox proportional hazards regression model.

Authors:  Peter C Austin; Michael J Pencinca; Ewout W Steyerberg
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2015-02-05       Impact factor: 3.021

10.  Risk prediction for breast, endometrial, and ovarian cancer in white women aged 50 y or older: derivation and validation from population-based cohort studies.

Authors:  Ruth M Pfeiffer; Yikyung Park; Aimée R Kreimer; James V Lacey; David Pee; Robert T Greenlee; Saundra S Buys; Albert Hollenbeck; Bernard Rosner; Mitchell H Gail; Patricia Hartge
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2013-07-30       Impact factor: 11.069

View more
  3 in total

1.  Improving External Validity of Epidemiologic Cohort Analyses: A Kernel Weighting Approach.

Authors:  Lingxiao Wang; Barry I Graubard; Hormuzd A Katki; Yan Li
Journal:  J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc       Date:  2020-04-25       Impact factor: 2.483

2.  Personalized antibiograms for machine learning driven antibiotic selection.

Authors:  Conor K Corbin; Lillian Sung; Arhana Chattopadhyay; Morteza Noshad; Amy Chang; Stanley Deresinksi; Michael Baiocchi; Jonathan H Chen
Journal:  Commun Med (Lond)       Date:  2022-04-08

3.  Modeling risks of cardiovascular and cancer mortality following a diagnosis of loco-regional breast cancer.

Authors:  Nicole M Leoce; Zhezhen Jin; Rebecca D Kehm; Janise M Roh; Cecile A Laurent; Lawrence H Kushi; Mary Beth Terry
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2021-09-27       Impact factor: 6.466

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.