Literature DB >> 29304237

Performance of the Net Reclassification Improvement for Nonnested Models and a Novel Percentile-Based Alternative.

Shannon B McKearnan1, Julian Wolfson1, David M Vock1, Gabriela Vazquez-Benitez2, Patrick J O'Connor2.   

Abstract

The net reclassification improvement (NRI) is a widely used metric used to assess the relative ability of 2 risk models to distinguish between low- and high-risk individuals. However, the validity and usefulness of the NRI have been questioned. Criticism of the NRI focuses on its use comparing nested risk models, whereas in practice it is often used to compare nonnested risk models derived from distinct data sources. In this study, we evaluated the performance of the NRI in a nonnested context by using it to compare competing cardiovascular risk-prediction models. We explored the NRI's sensitivity to variations in risk categories and to the calibration of the compared models. We found that the NRI was very sensitive to changes in the definition of risk categories, especially when at least 1 model was miscalibrated. To address these shortcomings, we describe a novel alternative to the usual NRI that uses percentiles of risk instead of cutoffs based on absolute risk. This percentile-based NRI demonstrates the relative ability of 2 models to rank patient risk. It displays more stable behavior, and we recommend its use when there are no established risk categories or when models are miscalibrated.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29304237      PMCID: PMC5982725          DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwx374

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Epidemiol        ISSN: 0002-9262            Impact factor:   4.897


  26 in total

Review 1.  Comparisons of established risk prediction models for cardiovascular disease: systematic review.

Authors:  George C M Siontis; Ioanna Tzoulaki; Konstantinos C Siontis; John P A Ioannidis
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2012-05-24

Review 2.  Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors.

Authors:  F E Harrell; K L Lee; D B Mark
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1996-02-28       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Interpreting incremental value of markers added to risk prediction models.

Authors:  Michael J Pencina; Ralph B D'Agostino; Karol M Pencina; A Cecile J W Janssens; Philip Greenland
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2012-08-08       Impact factor: 4.897

Review 4.  Net reclassification improvement: computation, interpretation, and controversies: a literature review and clinician's guide.

Authors:  Maarten J G Leening; Moniek M Vedder; Jacqueline C M Witteman; Michael J Pencina; Ewout W Steyerberg
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2014-01-21       Impact factor: 25.391

5.  Extensions of net reclassification improvement calculations to measure usefulness of new biomarkers.

Authors:  Michael J Pencina; Ralph B D'Agostino; Ewout W Steyerberg
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2010-11-05       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  The Critical Importance of Risk Score Calibration: Time for Transformative Approach to Risk Score Validation?

Authors:  Michael J Blaha
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2016-05-10       Impact factor: 24.094

7.  An analysis of calibration and discrimination among multiple cardiovascular risk scores in a modern multiethnic cohort.

Authors:  Andrew P DeFilippis; Rebekah Young; Christopher J Carrubba; John W McEvoy; Matthew J Budoff; Roger S Blumenthal; Richard A Kronmal; Robyn L McClelland; Khurram Nasir; Michael J Blaha
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2015-02-17       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  External validation and comparison with other models of the International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium prognostic model: a population-based study.

Authors:  Daniel Y C Heng; Wanling Xie; Meredith M Regan; Lauren C Harshman; Georg A Bjarnason; Ulka N Vaishampayan; Mary Mackenzie; Lori Wood; Frede Donskov; Min-Han Tan; Sun-Young Rha; Neeraj Agarwal; Christian Kollmannsberger; Brian I Rini; Toni K Choueiri
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2013-01-09       Impact factor: 41.316

Review 9.  Net reclassification indices for evaluating risk prediction instruments: a critical review.

Authors:  Kathleen F Kerr; Zheyu Wang; Holly Janes; Robyn L McClelland; Bruce M Psaty; Margaret S Pepe
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 4.822

10.  Validation of the pooled cohort risk score in an Asian population - a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Yook Chin Chia; Hooi Min Lim; Siew Mooi Ching
Journal:  BMC Cardiovasc Disord       Date:  2014-11-20       Impact factor: 2.298

View more
  4 in total

1.  Natural Language Processing to Improve Prediction of Incident Atrial Fibrillation Using Electronic Health Records.

Authors:  Jeffrey M Ashburner; Yuchiao Chang; Xin Wang; Shaan Khurshid; Christopher D Anderson; Kumar Dahal; Dana Weisenfeld; Tianrun Cai; Katherine P Liao; Kavishwar B Wagholikar; Shawn N Murphy; Steven J Atlas; Steven A Lubitz; Daniel E Singer
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2022-07-29       Impact factor: 6.106

2.  A Comparison of Clinical Prognostic Indices in Elderly Patients with Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Treated with a Pegylated Liposomal Doxorubicin Combination Regimen in China.

Authors:  Hongye Gao; Yanfeng Xu; Yanfei Liu; Lan Mi; Xiaopei Wang; Weiping Liu; Jun Zhu; Yuqin Song
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2022-09-14       Impact factor: 3.602

3.  Pan-cancer analysis demonstrates that integrating polygenic risk scores with modifiable risk factors improves risk prediction.

Authors:  Linda Kachuri; Rebecca E Graff; Karl Smith-Byrne; Travis J Meyers; Sara R Rashkin; Elad Ziv; John S Witte; Mattias Johansson
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2020-11-27       Impact factor: 14.919

4.  Development and Validation of a Nomogram Based on Nutritional Indicators and Tumor Markers for Prognosis Prediction of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Haoran Li; Fang Zhou; Zhifei Cao; Yuchen Tang; Yujie Huang; Ye Li; Bin Yi; Jian Yang; Peng Du; Dongming Zhu; Jian Zhou
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-05-31       Impact factor: 6.244

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.