Integrating the predictiveness of a marker with its performance as a classifier

American Journal of Epidemiology

Volumn 167, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 362-368

  Pepe, Margaret S ^a,b   Feng, Ziding ^a   Huang, Ying ^b   Longton, Gary ^a   Prentice, Ross ^a   Thompson, Ian M ^c   Zheng, Yingye ^a  

^a Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AT SAN ANTONIO   (United States)

Author keywords

Biological markers; Classification analysis; Diagnostic tests, routine; Epidemiologic methods; Predictive value of tests; Prostate specific antigen; Risk assessment; Risk model

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL MARKER; PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ANTIGEN; BIOMARKER; GRAPHICAL METHOD; MODEL; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY; CANCER RISK; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PREDICTION; PROSTATE CANCER; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; BLOOD; EPIDEMIOLOGY; METHODOLOGY; PREDICTION AND FORECASTING; RISK; ROC CURVE; STATISTICAL MODEL; THEORETICAL MODEL;

BIOLOGICAL MARKERS; EPIDEMIOLOGIC METHODS; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MALE; MODELS, THEORETICAL; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; RISK; RISK ASSESSMENT; ROC CURVE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 38849184152     PISSN: 00029262     EISSN: 14766256     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwm305     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Moons KGM, Harrell FE. Sensitivity and specificity should be de-emphasized in diagnostic accuracy studies. Acad Radiol 2003;10:670-2.
2. Pepe MS, Janes H, Longton G, et al. Limitations of the odds ratio in gauging the performance of a diagnostic, prognostic, or screening marker. Am J Epidemiol 2004;159:882-90.
3. Thompson IM, Ankerst DP, Chi C, et al. Screen-based prostate cancer risk: results from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006;98:529-34.
4. Lemeshow S, Hosmer DW Jr. A review of goodness of fit statistics for use in the development of logistic regression models. Am J Epidemiol 1982;115:92-106.
5. Neter J, Kutner MH, Wasserman W, et al. Applied linear statistical models. Hightstown, NJ: McGraw Hill, 1996.
6. Efron B, Tibshirani RJ. An introduction to the bootstrap. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC, 1993.
7. Mittlebock M, Schemper M. Explained variation for logistic regression. Stat Med 1996;15:1987-97.
8. McIntosh M, Pepe MS. Combining several screening tests: optimality of the risk score. Biometrics 2002;58:657-64.
9. Neyman J, Pearson ES. On the problem of the most efficient tests of statistical hypothesis. Philos Trans R Soc Lond A 1933;231:289-337.
10. Gail MH, Pfeiffer RM. On criteria for evaluating models of absolute risk. Biostatistics 2005;6:227-39.
11. Bach PB, Kattan MW, Thornquist MD, et al. Variations in lung cancer risk among smokers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:470-8.
12. Pulkstenis E, Robinson TJ. Two goodness of fit tests for logistic regression models with continuous covariates. Stat Med 2002;21:79-93.
13. Lin DY, Wei LJ, Ying Z. Model-checking techniques based on cumulative residuals. Biometrics 2002;58:1-12.
14. le Cessie S, van Houwelingen C. Testing the fit of a regression model via score tests in random effects models. Biometrics 1995;51:600-14.
15. Goldman L, Cook EF, Mitchell N, et al. Incremental value of the exercise test for diagnosing the presence or absence of coronary artery disease. Circulation 1982;66:945-53.
16. Cook NR, Buring JE, Ridker PM. The effect of including C-reactive protein in cardiovascular risk prediction models for women. Ann Intern Med 2006;145:21-9.
17. Huang Y, Pepe MS, Feng Z. Evaluating the predictiveness of a continuous marker. Biometrics (doi:10.1111/j.1541-0420.2007.00814.x).
18. Bura E, Gastwirth JL. The binary regression quantile plot: assessing the importance of predictors in binary regression visually. Biom J 2001;43:5-21.
19. Pencina MJ, D'Agostino RB Sr, D'Agostino RB Jr, et al. Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: from area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond. Stat Med (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi- bin/fulltext/114278764/PDFSTART).
20. Pepe MS, Janes H, Gu JW. Re: "Use and misuse of the receiver operating characteristic curve in risk prediction." (Letter). Circulation 2007;116:e132.