Keisuke Ejima1,2, Neena A Xavier3, Tapan Mehta4,5. 1. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Indiana University School of Public Health-Bloomington, Bloomington, Indiana, USA. 2. Institute of Industrial Science, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan. 3. Department of Clinical and Diagnostic Sciences, School of Health Professions, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA. 4. Department of Health Services Administration, School of Health Professions, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA. 5. Nutrition Obesity Research Center, School of Health Professions, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Differences in discriminative and predictive ability for all-cause mortality of two clinical staging systems, the Edmonton Obesity Staging System (EOSS) and Cardiometabolic Disease Staging (CMDS), were estimated. METHODS: Data for nonpregnant persons aged 40 to 75 years were extracted from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Predictive and discriminative ability was assessed using pseudo-R2 and C-statistics. Median years of life lost were also computed for each score. RESULTS: Differences in out-of-sample estimates of pseudo-R2 and C-statistics (EOSS model as reference) were 0.02 (95% CI: 0.01-0.04) (Kent pseudo-R2 ), 0.03 (0.01-0.04) (Royston pseudo-R2 ), and 0.02 (0.01-0.02) (C-statistics). The median years of life lost for EOSS scores 2 and 3 (low to high risk) for a reference person were 1.19 and 6.76 years. Those for CMDS scores 1, 2, 3, and 4 (low to high risk) were 1.53, 2.90, 3.91, and 8.51 years. Consistent results from the in-sample estimates were observed. CONCLUSIONS: CMDS had statistically significantly greater predictive and discriminative ability than EOSS for persons aged 40 to 75. While the clinical relevance of these differences is unknown, CMDS may have greater clinical utility given that it uses fewer items to risk stratify. The clinical relevance and utility need to be studied further.
OBJECTIVE: Differences in discriminative and predictive ability for all-cause mortality of two clinical staging systems, the Edmonton Obesity Staging System (EOSS) and Cardiometabolic Disease Staging (CMDS), were estimated. METHODS: Data for nonpregnant persons aged 40 to 75 years were extracted from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Predictive and discriminative ability was assessed using pseudo-R2 and C-statistics. Median years of life lost were also computed for each score. RESULTS: Differences in out-of-sample estimates of pseudo-R2 and C-statistics (EOSS model as reference) were 0.02 (95% CI: 0.01-0.04) (Kent pseudo-R2 ), 0.03 (0.01-0.04) (Royston pseudo-R2 ), and 0.02 (0.01-0.02) (C-statistics). The median years of life lost for EOSS scores 2 and 3 (low to high risk) for a reference person were 1.19 and 6.76 years. Those for CMDS scores 1, 2, 3, and 4 (low to high risk) were 1.53, 2.90, 3.91, and 8.51 years. Consistent results from the in-sample estimates were observed. CONCLUSIONS:CMDS had statistically significantly greater predictive and discriminative ability than EOSS for persons aged 40 to 75. While the clinical relevance of these differences is unknown, CMDS may have greater clinical utility given that it uses fewer items to risk stratify. The clinical relevance and utility need to be studied further.
Authors: Marcela Rodríguez-Flores; Eduardo W Goicochea-Turcott; Leonardo Mancillas-Adame; Nayely Garibay-Nieto; Malaquías López-Cervantes; Mario E Rojas-Russell; Lilia V Castro-Porras; Eduardo Gutiérrez-León; Luis F Campos-Calderón; Karen Pedraza-Escudero; Karina Aguilar-Cuarto; Eréndira Villanueva-Ortega; Joselin Hernández-Ruíz; Guadalupe Guerrero-Avendaño; Sheyla M Monzalvo-Reyes; Rafael García-Rascón; Israel N Gil-Velázquez; Dora E Cortés-Hernández; Marcela Granados-Shiroma; Brenda G Alvarez-Rodríguez; Martha L Cabello-Garza; Zaira L González-Contreras; Esteban Picazo-Palencia; Juana M Cerda-Arteaga; Héctor R Pérez-Gómez; Roberto Calva-Rodríguez; Gerardo Sánchez-Rodríguez; Leslie D Carpio-Vázquez; María A Dávalos-Herrera; Karla M Villatoro-de-Pleitez; Melissa D Suárez-López; María G Nevárez-Carrillo; Karina Pérez-Alcántara; Roopa Mehta; Edurne Sandoval Diez; Edward W Gregg Journal: Int J Obes (Lond) Date: 2022-01-01 Impact factor: 5.095
Authors: Raymond Kodsi; Ritesh Chimoriya; David Medveczky; Kathy Grudzinskas; Evan Atlantis; Abd A Tahrani; Nic Kormas; Milan K Piya Journal: Nutrients Date: 2022-02-24 Impact factor: 5.717
Authors: Sarah Louise Killeen; Cara A Yelverton; Aisling A Geraghty; Maria A Kennelly; Shane Eakins; Lily Farrell; Jillian F Fagan; John Mehegan; Fionnuala M McAuliffe Journal: Clin Obes Date: 2022-02-24
Authors: Sarah Louise Killeen; David F Byrne; Aisling A Geraghty; Mark T Kilbane; Patrick J Twomey; Malachi J McKenna; Cara A Yelverton; Radka Saldova; Douwe Van Sinderen; Paul D Cotter; Eileen F Murphy; Fionnuala M McAuliffe Journal: Ann Nutr Metab Date: 2022-03-18 Impact factor: 5.923
Authors: Rukia Swaleh; Taylor McGuckin; Tyler W Myroniuk; Donna Manca; Karen Lee; Arya M Sharma; Denise Campbell-Scherer; Roseanne O Yeung Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2021-12-07