The Evaluation of Novel Biomarkers and the Multiple Biomarker Approach in the Prediction of Cardiovascular Disease

Current Cardiovascular Risk Reports

Volumn 8, Issue 11, 2014, Pages 1-4

  Eapen, Danny J ^a   Ghasemzadeh, Nima ^a   MacNamara, James P ^a   Quyyumi, Arshed ^a  

^a EMORY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Biomarker; Calibration; Cardiovascular disease; Discrimination; Multiple Biomarkers; Net reclassification index

Indexed keywords

AMINO TERMINAL PRO BRAIN NATRIURETIC PEPTIDE; BIOLOGICAL MARKER; C REACTIVE PROTEIN; CYSTATIN C; TROPONIN I;

ALGORITHM; CALIBRATION; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FRAMINGHAM RISK SCORE; HEART INFARCTION; HUMAN; PREDICTION; PROBABILITY; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; REVIEW; SCORING SYSTEM; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; YOUDENS INDEX;

EID: 84907483030     PISSN: 19329520     EISSN: 19329563     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s12170-014-0408-3     Document Type: Review

References (17)

1. Wilson PW, D'Agostino RB, Levy D, et al. Prediction of coronary heart disease using risk factor categories. Circulation. 1998;97:1837–47.
2. Biomarkers Definitions Working G. Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin Pharmacol Therapeut. 2001;69:89–95.
3. Vasan RS. Biomarkers of cardiovascular disease: molecular basis and practical considerations. Circulation. 2006;113:2335–62.
4. Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Balk EM, et al. Diagnosing acute cardiac ischemia in the emergency department: a systematic review of the accuracy and clinical effect of current technologies. Ann Emerg Med. 2001;37:453–60.
5. Youden WJ. Index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer. 1950;3:32–5.
6. Hilden J, Glasziou P. Regret graphs, diagnostic uncertainty and Youden's Index. Stat Med. 1996;15:969–86.
7. Ray P, Le Manach Y, Riou B, et al. Statistical evaluation of a biomarker. Anesthesiology. 2010;112:1023–40.
8. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology. 1983;148:839–43.
9. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988;44:837–45.
10. Ware JH. The limitations of risk factors as prognostic tools. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:2615–7. 21.
11. 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.
12. Pencina MJ, D'Agostino Sr RB, D'Agostino Jr RB, et al. Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: from area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond. Stat Med. 2008;27:157–72. discussion 207–112.
13. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. A goodness-of-fit test for the multiple logistic regression model. Comm Stat. 1980;A10:1043–69.
14. Tripepi G, Jager KJ, Dekker FW, Zoccali C. Statistical methods for the assessment of prognostic biomarkers(part II): calibration and re-classification. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2010;25:1402–5. This paper discusses statistical measures to assess calibration of a statistical model.
15. Zethelius B, Berglund L, Sundstrom J, et al. Use of multiple biomarkers to improve the prediction of death from cardiovascular causes. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:2107–116.
16. Eapen DJ, Manocha P, Patel RS, et al. Aggregate risk score based on markers of inflammation, cell stress, and coagulation is an independent predictor of adverse cardiovascular outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62:329–37. This study demonstrates the utility of using a multi-marker model to enhance prediction of cardiovascular events.
17. Pinsky PF, Zhu CS. Building multi-marker algorithms for disease prediction-the role of correlations among markers. Biomark Insights. 2011;6:83–93. This paper demonstrates the value of using negatively correlated biomarkers to enhance the C statistic.