Literature DB >> 9160492

A comparison of goodness-of-fit tests for the logistic regression model.

D W Hosmer1, T Hosmer, S Le Cessie, S Lemeshow.   

Abstract

Recent work has shown that there may be disadvantages in the use of the chi-square-like goodness-of-fit tests for the logistic regression model proposed by Hosmer and Lemeshow that use fixed groups of the estimated probabilities. A particular concern with these grouping strategies based on estimated probabilities, fitted values, is that groups may contain subjects with widely different values of the covariates. It is possible to demonstrate situations where one set of fixed groups shows the model fits while the test rejects fit using a different set of fixed groups. We compare the performance by simulation of these tests to tests based on smoothed residuals proposed by le Cessie and Van Houwelingen and Royston, a score test for an extended logistic regression model proposed by Stukel, the Pearson chi-square and the unweighted residual sum-of-squares. These simulations demonstrate that all but one of Royston's tests have the correct size. An examination of the performance of the tests when the correct model has a quadratic term but a model containing only the linear term has been fit shows that the Pearson chi-square, the unweighted sum-of-squares, the Hosmer-Lemeshow decile of risk, the smoothed residual sum-of-squares and Stukel's score test, have power exceeding 50 per cent to detect moderate departures from linearity when the sample size is 100 and have power over 90 per cent for these same alternatives for samples of size 500. All tests had no power when the correct model had an interaction between a dichotomous and continuous covariate but only the continuous covariate model was fit. Power to detect an incorrectly specified link was poor for samples of size 100. For samples of size 500 Stukel's score test had the best power but it only exceeded 50 per cent to detect an asymmetric link function. The power of the unweighted sum-of-squares test to detect an incorrectly specified link function was slightly less than Stukel's score test. We illustrate the tests within the context of a model for factors associated with low birth weight.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9160492     DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19970515)16:9<965::aid-sim509>3.0.co;2-o

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  448 in total

1.  Comparison of APACHE III, APACHE IV, SAPS 3, and MPM0III and influence of resuscitation status on model performance.

Authors:  Mark T Keegan; Ognjen Gajic; Bekele Afessa
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 9.410

2.  External validity of risk models: Use of benchmark values to disentangle a case-mix effect from incorrect coefficients.

Authors:  Yvonne Vergouwe; Karel G M Moons; Ewout W Steyerberg
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2010-08-31       Impact factor: 4.897

3.  Chronic kidney disease and risk for presenting with acute myocardial infarction versus stable exertional angina in adults with coronary heart disease.

Authors:  Alan S Go; Nisha Bansal; Malini Chandra; Phenius V Lathon; Stephen P Fortmann; Carlos Iribarren; Chi-Yuan Hsu; Mark A Hlatky
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2011-10-04       Impact factor: 24.094

4.  Measuring efficiency in Australian and New Zealand paediatric intensive care units.

Authors:  Lahn D Straney; Archie Clements; Jan Alexander; Anthony Slater
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2010-05-26       Impact factor: 17.440

5.  Bartonella Infection in Hematophagous, Insectivorous, and Phytophagous Bat Populations of Central Mexico and the Yucatan Peninsula.

Authors:  Matthew J Stuckey; Bruno B Chomel; Guillermo Galvez-Romero; José Ignacio Olave-Leyva; Cirani Obregón-Morales; Hayde Moreno-Sandoval; Nidia Aréchiga-Ceballos; Mónica Salas-Rojas; Alvaro Aguilar-Setién
Journal:  Am J Trop Med Hyg       Date:  2017-07-19       Impact factor: 2.345

6.  Vertebral fracture in postmenopausal Chinese women: a population-based study.

Authors:  L Cui; L Chen; W Xia; Y Jiang; L Cui; W Huang; W Wang; X Wang; Y Pei; X Zheng; Q Wang; Z Ning; M Li; O Wang; X Xing; Q Lin; W Yu; X Weng; L Xu; S R Cummings
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2017-05-30       Impact factor: 4.507

7.  Evaluating the Framingham hypertension risk prediction model in young adults: the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study.

Authors:  April P Carson; Cora E Lewis; David R Jacobs; Carmen A Peralta; Lyn M Steffen; Julie K Bower; Sharina D Person; Paul Muntner
Journal:  Hypertension       Date:  2013-09-16       Impact factor: 10.190

8.  Plasma Glycated CD59 Predicts Early Gestational Diabetes and Large for Gestational Age Newborns.

Authors:  DongDong Ma; Miguel Angel Luque-Fernandez; Delia Bogdanet; Gernot Desoye; Fidelma Dunne; Jose A Halperin
Journal:  J Clin Endocrinol Metab       Date:  2020-04-01       Impact factor: 5.958

9.  Risk factors for adverse outcomes after the surgical treatment of appendicitis in adults.

Authors:  Julie A Margenthaler; Walter E Longo; Katherine S Virgo; Frank E Johnson; Charles A Oprian; William G Henderson; Jennifer Daley; Shukri F Khuri
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 12.969

10.  Assessing the performance of prediction models: a framework for traditional and novel measures.

Authors:  Ewout W Steyerberg; Andrew J Vickers; Nancy R Cook; Thomas Gerds; Mithat Gonen; Nancy Obuchowski; Michael J Pencina; Michael W Kattan
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 4.822

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.