What to expect from net reclassification improvement with three categories

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 33, Issue 28, 2014, Pages 4975-4987

  Pencina, Karol M ^a   Pencina, Michael J ^b   D'Agostino, Ralph B ^a  

^a Boston University   (United States)

^b DUKE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Discrimination; Model performance; NRI; Reclassification; Risk prediction

Indexed keywords

BRAIN NATRIURETIC PEPTIDE; C REACTIVE PROTEIN; BIOLOGICAL MARKER;

ARTICLE; CARDIOVASCULAR RISK; EFFECT SIZE; HEART ATRIUM FIBRILLATION; HUMAN; INCIDENCE; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; NET RECLASSIFICATION IMPROVEMENT; PREDICTION; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICAL CONCEPTS; ADULT; AGED; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ATRIAL FIBRILLATION; BLOOD; COMPUTER SIMULATION; FEMALE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROCEDURES; THEORETICAL MODEL; VERY ELDERLY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AREA UNDER CURVE; ATRIAL FIBRILLATION; BIOLOGICAL MARKERS; C-REACTIVE PROTEIN; COMPUTER SIMULATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, THEORETICAL; NATRIURETIC PEPTIDE, BRAIN; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 84908870142     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.6286     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Pencina MJ, D'Agostino RB, Sr., D'Agostino RB, Jr., Vasan RS. Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: from area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond. Statistics in Medicine 2008; 27:157-72.
2. Tzoulaki I, Liberopoulos G, Ioannidis JPA. Use of reclassification for assessment of improved prediction: an empirical evaluation. International Journal of Epidemiology 2011; 40(4):1094-1105.
3. Pepe MS, Janes H. Commentary: reporting standards are needed for evaluations of risk reclassification. International Journal of Epidemiology 2011; 40(4):1106-1108.
4. Tzoulaki I, Liberopoulos G, Ioannidis JPA. Assessment of claims of improved prediction beyond the Framingham risk score. JAMA 2009; 302:2345-52.
5. So HC, Sham PC. A unifying framework for evaluating the predictive power of genetic variants based on the level of heritability explained. PLoS Genet 2010; 6(12):1-13.
6. Pepe MS, Janes H. Methods for evaluating prediction performance of biomarkers and tests. UW Biostatistics Working Paper Series. Working Paper 384, 2012. Available from: http://biostats.bepress.com/uwbiostat/paper384 [Accessed 21 July 2014].
7. Janes H, Pepe M, Gu W. Assessing the value of risk predictions by using risk stratification tables. Annals of Internal Medicine 2008; 149:751-760.
8. Pepe MS, Feng Z, Gu JW. Commentary on 'Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: from area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond'. Statistics in Medicine 2008; 27:173-81.
9. Pencina MJ, D'Agostino RB, Sr., Steyerberg E. Extensions of net reclassification improvement calculations to measure usefulness of new biomarkers. Statistics in Medicine 2011; 30:11-21.
10. Polak JF, Pencina MJ, Pencina KM, O'Donnell CJ, Wolf PA, D'Agostino RB. Carotid-wall intima-media thickness and cardiovascular events. New England Journal of Medicine 2011; 365:213-221.
11. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale NJ, 1988.
12. Mahalanobis PC. On the generalized distance in statistics. Proceedings of the National Institute of Sciences of India 1936; 2:49-55.
13. Vickers AJ, Elkin EB. Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models. Medical Decision Making 2006; 26:565-574.
14. Su JQ, Liu JS. Linear combinations of multiple diagnostic markers. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1993; 88:1350-55.
15. Schnabel RB, Larson MG, Yamamoto JF, Sullivan LM, Pencina MJ, Meigs JB, Tofler GH, J Selhub, Jacques PF, Wolf PA, Magnani JW, Ellinor PT, Wang TJ, Levy D, Vasan RS, Benjamin EJ. Relations of biomarkers of distinct pathophysiological pathways and atrial fibrillation incidence in the community. Circulation 2010; 121(2):200-207.
16. Pencina MJ, D'Agostino RB, Pencina KM, Janssens AC, Greenland P. Interpreting incremental value of markers added to risk prediction models. American Journal of Epidemiology 2012; 176(6):473-81.
17. SAS Institute Inc. SAS/STATR 9.2 User's Guide. SAS Institute Inc. (proc logistic): Cary, NC, 2008.
18. Qin GS, Hsu YS, Zhou XH. New confidence intervals for the difference between two sensitivities at a fixed level of specificity. Statistics in Medicine 2006; 25:3487-3502.
19. Vickers AJ, Cronin AM, Begg CB. One statistical test is sufficient for assessing new predictive markers. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2011; 11:13.
20. Demler OV, Pencina MJ, D'Agostino RBS. Misuse of DeLong test to compare AUCs for nested models. Statistics in Medicine 2012; 31:2577-2587.
21. Pepe MS, Kerr KF, Longton G, Wang Z. Testing for improvement in prediction model performance. Statistics in Medicine 2013; 32:1467-1482.
22. Heagerty PJ, Lumley T, Pepe MS. Time-dependent ROC curves for censored survival data and a diagnostic marker. Biometrics 2000; 56(2):337-44.