Literature DB >> 30364028

Overview of model validation for survival regression model with competing risks using melanoma study data.

Zhongheng Zhang1, Giuliana Cortese2, Christophe Combescure3, Roger Marshall4, Minjung Lee5, Hyun Ja Lim6, Bernhard Haller7.   

Abstract

The article introduces how to validate regression models in the analysis of competing risks. The prediction accuracy of competing risks regression models can be assessed by discrimination and calibration. The area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) or Concordance-index, and calibration plots have been widely used as measures of discrimination and calibration, respectively. One-time splitting method can be used for randomly splitting original data into training and test datasets. However, this method reduces sample sizes of both training and testing datasets, and the results can be different by different splitting processes. Thus, the cross-validation method is more appealing. For time-to-event data, model validation is performed at each analysis time point. In this article, we review how to perform model validation using the riskRegression package in R, along with plotting a nomogram for competing risks regression models using the regplot() package.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Calibration plot; competing risk; discrimination; prediction model

Year:  2018        PMID: 30364028      PMCID: PMC6186983          DOI: 10.21037/atm.2018.07.38

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Transl Med        ISSN: 2305-5839


  9 in total

1.  Cause-specific cumulative incidence estimation and the fine and gray model under both left truncation and right censoring.

Authors:  Ronald B Geskus
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  Tutorial in biostatistics: competing risks and multi-state models.

Authors:  H Putter; M Fiocco; R B Geskus
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2007-05-20       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Quantifying the predictive accuracy of time-to-event models in the presence of competing risks.

Authors:  Rotraut Schoop; Jan Beyersmann; Martin Schumacher; Harald Binder
Journal:  Biom J       Date:  2011-01-14       Impact factor: 2.207

Review 4.  A competing risks analysis should report results on all cause-specific hazards and cumulative incidence functions.

Authors:  Aurelien Latouche; Arthur Allignol; Jan Beyersmann; Myriam Labopin; Jason P Fine
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2013-02-14       Impact factor: 6.437

5.  The analysis of failure times in the presence of competing risks.

Authors:  R L Prentice; J D Kalbfleisch; A V Peterson; N Flournoy; V T Farewell; N E Breslow
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1978-12       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  Nomogram for survival analysis in the presence of competing risks.

Authors:  Zhongheng Zhang; Ronald B Geskus; Michael W Kattan; Haoyang Zhang; Tongyu Liu
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2017-10

7.  Predicting the absolute risk of dying from colorectal cancer and from other causes using population-based cancer registry data.

Authors:  Minjung Lee; Kathleen A Cronin; Mitchell H Gail; Eric J Feuer
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2011-12-14       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  Comparing predictions among competing risks models with time-dependent covariates.

Authors:  Giuliana Cortese; Thomas A Gerds; Per K Andersen
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2013-03-13       Impact factor: 2.373

9.  Calibration plots for risk prediction models in the presence of competing risks.

Authors:  Thomas A Gerds; Per K Andersen; Michael W Kattan
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2014-03-25       Impact factor: 2.373

  9 in total
  24 in total

1.  Competing Risk Modeling: Time to Put it in Our Standard Analytical Toolbox.

Authors:  Liang Li; Wei Yang; Brad C Astor; Tom Greene
Journal:  J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2019-11-15       Impact factor: 10.121

2.  Development and Validation of a Prognostic Nomogram to Guide Decision-Making for High-Grade Digestive Neuroendocrine Neoplasms.

Authors:  Zhenyu Lin; Haihong Wang; Yixuan Zhang; Guiling Li; Guoliang Pi; Xianjun Yu; Yaobing Chen; Kaizhou Jin; Liangkai Chen; Shengli Yang; Ying Zhu; Gang Wu; Jie Chen; Tao Zhang
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2019-11-29

3.  In-depth mining of clinical data: the construction of clinical prediction model with R.

Authors:  Zhi-Rui Zhou; Wei-Wei Wang; Yan Li; Kai-Rui Jin; Xuan-Yi Wang; Zi-Wei Wang; Yi-Shan Chen; Shao-Jia Wang; Jing Hu; Hui-Na Zhang; Po Huang; Guo-Zhen Zhao; Xing-Xing Chen; Bo Li; Tian-Song Zhang
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2019-12

4.  Machine learning-guided covariate selection for time-to-event models developed from a small sample of real-world patients receiving bevacizumab treatment.

Authors:  Eleni Karatza; Apostolos Papachristos; Gregory B Sivolapenko; Daniel Gonzalez
Journal:  CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol       Date:  2022-08-04

5.  Spatial environmental factors predict cardiovascular and all-cause mortality: Results of the SPACE study.

Authors:  Michael B Hadley; Mahdi Nalini; Samrachana Adhikari; Jackie Szymonifka; Arash Etemadi; Farin Kamangar; Masoud Khoshnia; Tyler McChane; Akram Pourshams; Hossein Poustchi; Sadaf G Sepanlou; Christian Abnet; Neal D Freedman; Paolo Boffetta; Reza Malekzadeh; Rajesh Vedanthan
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-06-24       Impact factor: 3.752

6.  Development and Validation of a Prognostic Nomogram to Guide Decision-Making for High-Grade Digestive Neuroendocrine Neoplasms.

Authors:  Zhenyu Lin; Haihong Wang; Yixuan Zhang; Guiling Li; Guoliang Pi; Xianjun Yu; Yaobing Chen; Kaizhou Jin; Liangkai Chen; Shengli Yang; Ying Zhu; Gang Wu; Jie Chen; Tao Zhang
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2019-11-29

7.  Fragility Fractures in Postmenopausal Women: Development of 5-Year Prediction Models Using the FRISBEE Study.

Authors:  Felicia Baleanu; Michel Moreau; Alexia Charles; Laura Iconaru; Rafik Karmali; Murielle Surquin; Florence Benoit; Aude Mugisha; Marianne Paesmans; Michel Rubinstein; Serge Rozenberg; Pierre Bergmann; Jean-Jacques Body
Journal:  J Clin Endocrinol Metab       Date:  2022-05-17       Impact factor: 6.134

8.  Lessons learnt when accounting for competing events in the external validation of time-to-event prognostic models.

Authors:  Chava L Ramspek; Lucy Teece; Kym I E Snell; Marie Evans; Richard D Riley; Maarten van Smeden; Nan van Geloven; Merel van Diepen
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2022-05-09       Impact factor: 9.685

9.  Prediction meets causal inference: the role of treatment in clinical prediction models.

Authors:  Nan van Geloven; Sonja A Swanson; Chava L Ramspek; Kim Luijken; Merel van Diepen; Tim P Morris; Rolf H H Groenwold; Hans C van Houwelingen; Hein Putter; Saskia le Cessie
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2020-05-22       Impact factor: 8.082

10.  Short leukocyte telomeres predict 25-year Alzheimer's disease incidence in non-APOE ε4-carriers.

Authors:  Fernanda Schäfer Hackenhaar; Maria Josefsson; Annelie Nordin Adolfsson; Mattias Landfors; Karolina Kauppi; Magnus Hultdin; Rolf Adolfsson; Sofie Degerman; Sara Pudas
Journal:  Alzheimers Res Ther       Date:  2021-07-15       Impact factor: 6.982

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.