Literature DB >> 29462286

The c-index is not proper for the evaluation of $t$-year predicted risks.

Paul Blanche1, Michael W Kattan2, Thomas A Gerds1.   

Abstract

We show that the widely used concordance index for time to event outcome is not proper when interest is in predicting a $t$-year risk of an event, for example 10-year mortality. In the situation with a fixed prediction horizon, the concordance index can be higher for a misspecified model than for a correctly specified model. Impropriety happens because the concordance index assesses the order of the event times and not the order of the event status at the prediction horizon. The time-dependent area under the receiver operating characteristic curve does not have this problem and is proper in this context.
© The Author 2018. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Keywords:  Concordance index; Cox regression; Discrimination ability; Model comparison; Survival prediction

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 29462286     DOI: 10.1093/biostatistics/kxy006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biostatistics        ISSN: 1465-4644            Impact factor:   5.899


  30 in total

1.  BAYESIAN VARIABLE SELECTION FOR SURVIVAL DATA USING INVERSE MOMENT PRIORS.

Authors:  Amir Nikooienejad; Wenyi Wang; Valen E Johnson
Journal:  Ann Appl Stat       Date:  2020-06-29       Impact factor: 2.083

2.  Comparison of model fit and discriminatory ability of the 8th edition of the tumor-node-metastasis classification and the 9th edition of the Japanese classification to identify stage III colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Kei Kitamura; Dai Shida; Shigeki Sekine; Yuka Ahiko; Yuya Nakamura; Konosuke Moritani; Shunsuke Tsukamoto; Yukihide Kanemitsu
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2021-06-03       Impact factor: 3.402

3.  Functional survival forests for multivariate longitudinal outcomes: Dynamic prediction of Alzheimer's disease progression.

Authors:  Jeffrey Lin; Kan Li; Sheng Luo
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2020-07-29       Impact factor: 3.021

4.  The relationship between the C-statistic and the accuracy of program-specific evaluations.

Authors:  Andrew Wey; Nicholas Salkowski; Bertram L Kasiske; Melissa A Skeans; Sally K Gustafson; Ajay K Israni; Jon J Snyder
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2018-10-29       Impact factor: 8.086

5.  Inverse-Weighted Survival Games.

Authors:  Xintian Han; Mark Goldstein; Aahlad Puli; Thomas Wies; Adler J Perotte; Rajesh Ranganath
Journal:  Adv Neural Inf Process Syst       Date:  2021-12

6.  Artificial Intelligence-Based Prognostic Model for Urologic Cancers: A SEER-Based Study.

Authors:  Okyaz Eminaga; Eugene Shkolyar; Bernhard Breil; Axel Semjonow; Martin Boegemann; Lei Xing; Ilker Tinay; Joseph C Liao
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-06-26       Impact factor: 6.575

7.  An Eleven-microRNA Signature Related to Tumor-Associated Macrophages Predicts Prognosis of Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Sharmilla Devi Jayasingam; Marimuthu Citartan; Anani Aila Mat Zin; Timofey S Rozhdestvensky; Thean-Hock Tang; Ewe Seng Ch'ng
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2022-06-23       Impact factor: 6.208

8.  Dynamic prediction of Alzheimer's disease progression using features of multiple longitudinal outcomes and time-to-event data.

Authors:  Kan Li; Sheng Luo
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2019-08-06       Impact factor: 2.373

9.  Survival analysis following enucleation for uveal melanoma.

Authors:  Guy S Negretti; Sarega Gurudas; Beatrice Gallo; Bertil Damato; Amit K Arora; Sobha Sivaprasad; Mandeep S Sagoo
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2021-08-02       Impact factor: 4.456

10.  BoXHED: Boosted eXact Hazard Estimator with Dynamic covariates.

Authors:  Xiaochen Wang; Arash Pakbin; Bobak J Mortazavi; Hongyu Zhao; Donald K K Lee
Journal:  Proc Mach Learn Res       Date:  2020-07
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.