Erratum: Evaluating technologies for classification and prediction in medicine (Statistics in Medicine (2005) vol. 24 (3687-3696) 10.1002/sim.2431);Evaluating technologies for classification and prediction in medicine

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 24, Issue 24, 2005, Pages 3687-3696

  Pepe, M S ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^b Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center   (United States)

Author keywords

Diagnostic test; Disease screening; Odds ratio; Prognosis; Receiver operating characteristic

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL MARKER;

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL CLASSIFICATION; CLINICAL PRACTICE; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; GENOMICS; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; PATIENT SELECTION; PROGNOSIS; PROTEOMICS; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; RISK ASSESSMENT; STANDARDIZATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TREATMENT RESPONSE;

EID: 30944468728     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.2534     Document Type: Erratum

References (30)

1. Srivastava S, Kramer BS. Early detection cancer research network. Laboratory Investigations 2000; 80(8):1147-1148.
2. Liotta LA, Ferrari M, Petricoin E. Clinical proteomics: written in blood. Nature 2003; 425(6961):905.
3. Pollack A. New cancer test stirs hope and concern. New York Times, 3 Fev. 2004 (late ed., final:F1).
4. Knottnerus JA, van Weel C, Muris JWM. Evaluation of diagnostic procedures (evidence base of clinical diagnosis). British Medical Journal 2002; 324:477-480.
5. Begg CB. Advances in statistical methodology for diagnostic medicine in the 1980s. Statistics in Medicine 1991; 10:1887-1895.
6. Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman J. The Elements of Statistical Learning. Springer: New York, 2001.
7. Pepe MS, Janes H, Longton G, Wendy Leisenring W, Newcomb P. Limitations of the odds ratio in gauging the performance of a diagnostic, prognostic, or screening marker. American Journal of Epidemiology 2004; 159:882-890.
8. Emir B, Wieand S, Su JQ. Analysis of repeated markers used to predict progression of cancer. Statistics in Medicine 1998; 17:2563-2578.
9. Baker SG, Kramer BS, Srivastava S. Markers for early detection of cancer: statistical guidelines for nested case-controls studies. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2002; 2:4.
10. Wieand S, Gail MH, James BR, James KL. A family of nonparametric statistics for comparing diagnostic markers with paired or unpaired data. Biometrika 1989; 76:585-592.
11. McIntosh M, Pepe MS. Combining several screening tests: optimality of the risk score. Biometrics 2002; 58:657-664.
12. Hanley JA. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) methodology: the state of the art. Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging 1989; 29:307-335.
13. Pepe MS, Cai T, Longton G. Combining predictors for classification using the area under the ROC curve. Biometrics, in press.
14. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Lancet 2001; 357(9263):1191-1194.
15. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM et al. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Standards for reporting of diagnostic accuracy. Clinical Chemistry 2003; 49(1):1-6.
16. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, Moher D, Rennie D, de Vet HCW, Lijmer JG. The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine 2003; 138(1):W1-W12.
17. ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline. Statistical principles for clinical trials. International conference on harmonisation E9 expert working group. Statistics in Medicine 1999; 18(15):1905-1942.
18. Pepe MS, Etzioni R, Feng Z, Potter JD, Thompson ML, Thomquist M, Winget M, Yasui Y. Phases of biomarker development for early detection of cancer. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2001; 93(14):1054-1061.
19. Pepe MS, Etzioni R, Feng Z, Longton G, Potter J, Thompson ML, Thornquist M, Winget M, Yasui Y. Elements of study design for biomarker development. In Tumor Markers: Physiology, Pathobiology, Technology, and Clinical Applications, Diamondis E, Gritsche HA, Lilja H, Chan DW, Schwartz MK (eds). American Association for Clinical Chemistry Press: Washington, DC, 2002; 141-150.
20. Etzioni R, Pepe M, Longton G, Hu C, Goodman G. Incorporating the time dimension in receiver operating characteristic curves: a case study of prostate cancer. Medical Decision Making 1999; 19(3):242-251.
21. Pepe MS. The Statistical Evaluation of Medical Tests for Classification and Prediction. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2003.
22. Sackett DL, Haynes RB. The architecture of diagnostic research. In The Evidence Base of Clinical Diagnosis, Knotterus JA (ed.). BMJ Publishing Group: London, 2002; 19-38.
23. Freedman LS. Evaluating and comparing imaging techniques: a review and classification of study designs. British Journal of Radiology 1987; 60(719):1071-1081.
24. Fryback DG, Thornbury JR. The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Medical Decision Making 1991; 11(2):88-94.
25. Mackenzi R, Dixon AK. Measuring the effects of imaging: an evaluative framework. Clinical Radiology 1995; 50(8):513-518.
26. van der Schouw YT, Verbeek AL, Ruijs SH. Guidelines for the assessment of new diagnostic tests. Investigative Radiology 1995; 30(6):334-340.
27. Guyatt GH, Tugwell PX, Feeny DH, Haynes RB, Drummond M. A framework for clinical evaluation of diagnostic technologies. Canadian Medical Association Journal 1986; 134(6):587-594.
28. Hernandez-Aguado I. The winding road towards evidence based diagnoses. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 2002; 56(5):323-325.
29. Feinstein AR. Misguided efforts and future challenges for research on 'diagnostic tests'. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 2002; 56(5):330-332.
30. Baker SG. The central role of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves in evaluating tests for the early detection of cancer. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2003; 95(7):511-515.