Correction to How to interpret a small increase in AUC with an additional risk prediction marker: Decision analysis comes through [Statist. Med. (2015) 33, 22, 3946-3959] DOI: 10.1002/sim.6195;How to interpret a small increase in AUC with an additional risk prediction marker: Decision analysis comes through

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 33, Issue 22, 2014, Pages 3946-3959

  Baker, Stuart G ^a   Schuit, Ewoud ^b,c   Steyerberg, Ewout W ^d   Pencina, Michael J ^e   Vickers, Andew ^f   Moons, Karel G M ^b   Mol, Ben W J ^g   Lindeman, Karen S ^h  

^a NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^c ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^d ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^e DUKE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^f MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE   (Australia)

^h JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

AUC; Cesarean section; Decision curves; Receiver operating characteristic curves; Relative utility curves

Indexed keywords

AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; BIOSTATISTICS; DECISION MAKING; ELECTIVE INSTRUMENTAL DELIVERY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTAL DELIVERY; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; MATHEMATICAL PARAMETERS; MATHEMATICAL VARIABLE; NON ELECTIVE INSTRUMENTAL DELIVERY; PREDICTION; PREGNANCY; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; RISK ASSESSMENT; SAMPLING BIAS; STATISTICAL MODEL; STRATIFIED SAMPLE; SURVIVAL RATE; CESAREAN SECTION; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; KAPLAN MEIER METHOD; PROCEDURES;

AREA UNDER CURVE; CESAREAN SECTION; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; FEMALE; HUMANS; KAPLAN-MEIER ESTIMATE; PREGNANCY; RISK ASSESSMENT; ROC CURVE;

EID: 84906944196     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.6330     Document Type: Erratum

References (31)

1. Tzoulaki I, Liberopoulos G, Ioannidis JP. Assessment of claims of improved prediction beyond the Framingham risk score. Journal of the American Medical Association 2009; 302: 2345-2352.
2. Schuit E, Kwee A, Westerhuis ME, Van Dessel HJ, Graziosi GC, Van Lith JM, Nijhuis JG, Oei SG, Oosterbaan HP, Schuitemaker NW, Wouters MG, Visser GH, Mol BW, Moons KG, Groenwold RH. A clinical prediction model to assess the risk of later non-elective operative delivery. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2012; 119: 915-923.
3. Biswas S, Arum B, Parmigiani G. Reclassification of predictions for uncovering subgroup specific improvement. Statistics in Medicine 2014; 33: 1914-1927.
4. Spitz MR, Amos CI, D'Amelio A, Jr, Dong Q, Etzel C. Re: discriminatory accuracy from single-nucleotide polymorphisms in models to predict breast cancer risk. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2009; 101: 1731-1732.
5. Pencina MJ, D'Agostino RB, Massaro JM. Understanding increments in model performance metrics. Lifetime Data Analysis 2013; 9: 202-218.
6. Stokey E, Zeckhauser R. A Primer for Policy Analysis. WW Norton and Company: New York, 1978.
7. Weinstein MC, Fineberg HV, Elstein AS, Frazier HS, Neuhauser D, Neutra RR, McNeil BJ. Clinical Decision Analysis. WB Saunders Company: Philadelphia, 1980.
8. Chen MH, Willan AR. Value of information methods for assessing a new diagnostic test. Statistics in Medicine 2014; 33: 1801-1815.
9. Vickers AJ, Elkin EB. Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models. Medical Decision Making 2006; 26(6): 565-574.
10. Vickers AJ, Cronin AM, Elkin EB, Gonen M. Extensions to decision curve analysis, a novel method for evaluating diagnostic tests, prediction models and molecular markers. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 2008; 8: 53.
11. Baker SG, Cook NR, Vickers A, Kramer BS. Using relative utility curves to evaluate risk prediction. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A 2009; 172: 729-748.
12. Baker SG. Putting risk prediction in perspective: relative utility curves. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2009; 101: 1538-1542.
13. Baker SG, Van Calster B, Steyerberg EW. Evaluating a new marker for risk prediction using the test tradeoff: an update. International Journal of Biostatistics 2012; 8: 5.
14. Baker SG, Kramer BS. Evaluating a new marker for risk prediction: decision analysis to the rescue. Discovery Medicine 2012; 14: 181-188.
15. Baker SG, Darke AK, Pinsky P, Parnes HL, Kramer BS. Transparency and reproducibility in data analysis: the prostate cancer prevention trial. Biostatistics 2010; 11: 413-418.
16. Laine C, Goodman SN, Griswold ME, Sox HC. Reproducible research: moving toward research the public can really trust. Annals of Internal Medicine 2007; 146: 450-453.
17. Heagerty PJ, Lumley T, Pepe MS. Time dependent ROC curves for censored survival data and diagnostic markers. Biometrics 2000; 56: 337-344.
18. Cai T, Tian L, Lloyd-Jones DM. Comparing costs associated with risk stratification rules for t-year survival. Biostatistics 2011; 12: 597-609.
19. Briggs WM, Zaretzki R. The Skill Plot: a graphical technique for evaluating continuous diagnostic tests. Biometrics 2008; 64: 250-256.
20. Peirce CS. The numerical measure of the success of predictions. Science 1884; 4: 453-454.
21. Van Calster B. It takes time: a remarkable example of delayed recognition. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2012; 63: 2341-2344.
22. Pauker SG, Kassirer JP. The threshold approach to clinical decision making. New England Journal of Medicine 1980; 302: 1109-1117.
23. Metz CE. Basic principles of ROC analysis. Seminars in Nuclear Medicine 1978; 8: 283-298.
24. Gail MH, Pfeiffer RM. On criteria for evaluating models for absolute risk. Biostatistics 2005; 6: 227-239.
25. Provost F, Fawcett T. Robust classification for an imprecise environment. Machine Learning 2001; 42: 203-231.
26. Hand DJ. Measuring classifier performance: a coherent alternative to the area under the ROC curve. Machine Learning 2009; 77: 103-123.
27. Pepe MS, Janes H, Li C. Net risk reclassification p-values: valid or misleading? Journal of National Cancer Institute 2014; 106(4): dju041.
28. Leening MJG, Vedder MMJ, Witteman JCM, Pencina MJ, Steyerberg EW. Net reclassification improvement: computation, interpretation, and controversies: a literature review and clinician's guide. Annals of Internal Medicine 2014; 160: 122-131.
29. Steyerberg EW, Pencina MJ. Reclassification calculations for persons with incomplete follow-up. Annals of Internal Medicine 2010; 152: 195-196.
30. Wolfram Research Inc. Mathematica Version 8.0. Wolfram Research, Inc.: Champaign, IL, USA, 2010.
31. Peto R, Pike MC, Armitage P, Breslow NE, Cox DR, Howard SV, Mantel N, McPherson K, Peto J, Smith P G. Design and analysis of randomized clinical trials requiring prolonged observation of each patient: II analysis and examples. British Journal of Cancer 1972; 35: 1-39.