Developing risk prediction models for kidney injury and assessing incremental value for novel biomarkers

Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology

Volumn 9, Issue 8, 2014, Pages 1488-1496

  Kerr, Kathleen F ^a   Meisner, Allison ^a   Thiessen Philbrook, Heather ^b   Coca, Steven G ^c   Parikh, Chirag R ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

^c YALE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL MARKER; BRAIN NATRIURETIC PEPTIDE; KIDNEY INJURY MOLECULE 1;

ACUTE KIDNEY FAILURE; ALGORITHM; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; ATTRIBUTABLE RISK; CALIBRATION; CHRONIC KIDNEY DISEASE; CLINICAL CLASSIFICATION; DATA ANALYSIS; HUMAN; INCREMENTAL VALUE; KIDNEY INJURY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; NEPHROLOGY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PREDICTION; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PREDICTOR VARIABLE; PROBABILITY; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; ACUTE KIDNEY INJURY; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; BLOOD; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; PROGNOSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY; RISK FACTOR; STATISTICAL MODEL; URINE;

ACUTE KIDNEY INJURY; BIOLOGICAL MARKERS; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; HUMANS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROGNOSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS;

EID: 84919794934     PISSN: 15559041     EISSN: 1555905X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2215/CJN.10351013     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Vanmassenhove J, Vanholder R, Nagler E, Van Biesen W: Urinary and serumbiomarkers for the diagnosis of acute kidney injury: An in-depth review of the literature. Nephrol Dial Transplant 28: 254–273, 2013
2. Parikh CR, Coca SG, Thiessen-Philbrook H, Shlipak MG, Koyner JL, Wang Z, Edelstein CL, Devarajan P, Patel UD, Zappitelli M, Krawczeski CD, Passik CS, Swaminathan M, Garg AX, Consortium T-A; TRIBE-AKI Consortium: Postoperative biomarkers predict acute kidney injury and poor outcomes after adult cardiac surgery. J Am Soc Nephrol 22: 1748–1757, 2011
3. Mehta RH, Grab JD, O’Brien SM, Bridges CR, Gammie JS, Haan CK, Ferguson TB, Peterson ED; Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Cardiac Surgery Database Investigators: Bedside tool for predicting the risk of postoperative dialysis in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Circulation 114: 2208–2216quiz 2208, 2006
4. Bellomo R, Ronco C, Kellum JA, Mehta RL, Palevsky P; Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative workgroup: Acute renal failure— definition, outcome measures, animal models, fluid therapy and information technology needs: The Second International ConsensusConference of the AcuteDialysisQuality Initiative (ADQI) Group. Crit Care 8: R204–R212, 2004
5. Mehta RL, Kellum JA, Shah SV, Molitoris BA, Ronco C, Warnock DG, Levin A, Network AKI; Acute Kidney Injury Network: Acute Kidney Injury Network: Report of an initiative to improve outcomes in acute kidney injury. Crit Care 11: R31, 2007
6. Moons KG, Kengne AP, Woodward M, Royston P, Vergouwe Y, Altman DG, Grobbee DE: Risk prediction models: I. Development, internal validation, and assessing the incremental value of a new (bio)marker. Heart 98: 683–690, 2012
7. Derksen S, Keselman H: Backward, forward, and stepwise automated subset-selection algorithms - frequency of obtaining authentic and noise variables. Br J Math Stat Psychol 45: 265–282, 1992
8. Austin PC, Tu JV: Automated variable selection methods for logistic regression produced unstable models for predicting acute myocardial infarction mortality. J Clin Epidemiol 57: 1138–1146, 2004
9. Steyerberg EW, Eijkemans MJ, Habbema JD: Stepwise selection in small data sets: A simulation study of bias in logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 52: 935–942, 1999
10. Harrell FEJ: Regression Modeling Strategies, New York, Springer, 2001
11. Altman DG, Royston P: The cost of dichotomising continuous variables. BMJ 332: 1080, 2006
12. Naggara O, Raymond J, Guilbert F, Roy D, Weill A, Altman DG: Analysis by categorizing or dichotomizing continuous variables is inadvisable: An example fromthe natural history of unruptured aneurysms. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 32: 437–440, 2011
13. Frøslie KF, Røislien J, Laake P, Henriksen T, Qvigstad E, Veierød MB: Categorisation of continuous exposure variables revisited. A response to the Hyperglycaemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (HAPO) Study. BMC Med Res Methodol 10: 103, 2010
14. Royston P, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W: Dichotomizing continuous predictors inmultiple regression:Abad idea. StatMed 25: 127–141, 2006
15. Peduzzi P, Concato J, Kemper E, Holford TR, Feinstein AR: A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 49: 1373–1379, 1996
16. Bansal A, Pepe MS: When does combining markers improve classification performance and what are implications for practice? Stat Med 32: 1877–1892, 2013
17. Baker JO, Reinhold J, Redwood S, Marber MS: Troponins: Redefining their limits. Heart 97: 447–452, 2011
18. Hall IE, Coca SG, Perazella MA, Eko UU, Luciano RL, Peter PR, Han WK, Parikh CR: Risk of poor outcomes with novel and traditional biomarkers at clinical AKI diagnosis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 6: 2740–2749, 2011
19. Kavousi M, Elias-Smale S, Rutten JH, Leening MJ, Vliegenthart R, Verwoert GC, Krestin GP, Oudkerk M, de Maat MP, Leebeek FW, Mattace-Raso FU, Lindemans J, Hofman A, Steyerberg EW, van der Lugt A, van den Meiracker AH, Witteman JC: Evaluation of newer risk markers for coronary heart disease risk classification: A cohort study. Ann InternMed 156: 438–444, 2012
20. Koyner JL, Garg AX, Coca SG, Sint K, Thiessen-Philbrook H, Patel UD, Shlipak MG, Parikh CR, Consortium T-A; TRIBE-AKI Consortium: Biomarkers predict progression of acute kidney injury after cardiac surgery. J Am Soc Nephrol 23: 905–914, 2012
21. Melander O, Newton-Cheh C, Almgren P, Hedblad B, Berglund G, Engström G, Persson M, Smith JG, Magnusson M, Christensson A, Struck J, Morgenthaler NG, Bergmann A, Pencina MJ, Wang TJ: Novel and conventional biomarkers for prediction of incident cardiovascular events in the community. JAMA 302: 49–57, 2009
22. Nickolas TL, Schmidt-Ott KM, Canetta P, Forster C, Singer E, Sise M, Elger A, Maarouf O, Sola-Del Valle DA, O’Rourke M, Sherman E, Lee P, Geara A, Imus P, Guddati A, Polland A, Rahman W, Elitok S, Malik N, Giglio J, El-Sayegh S, Devarajan P, Hebbar S, Saggi SJ, Hahn B, Kettritz R, Luft FC, Barasch J: Diagnostic and prognostic stratification in the emergency department using urinary biomarkers of nephron damage: A multicenter prospective cohort study. J Am Coll Cardiol 59: 246– 255, 2012
23. Kattan MW: Judging new markers by their ability to improve predictive accuracy. J Natl Cancer Inst 95: 634–635, 2003
24. Demler OV, Pencina MJ, D’Agostino RB: Misuse of DeLong test to compare AUCs for nested models. Stat Med 31: 2577–2587, 2012
25. Pepe MS, Kerr KF, Longton G, Wang Z: Testing for improvement in prediction model performance. Stat Med 32: 1467–1482, 2013
26. Cook NR: Use andmisuse of the receiver operating characteristic curve in risk prediction. Circulation 115: 928–935, 2007
27. 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. Stat Med 27: 157–172discussion 207–212, 2008
28. Leening MJ, Steyerberg EW: Fibrosis and mortality in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy. JAMA 309: 2547–2548, 2013
29. Mühlenbruch K, Heraclides A, Steyerberg EW, Joost HG, Boeing H, Schulze MB: Assessing improvement in disease prediction using net reclassification improvement: Impact of risk cut-offs and number of risk categories. Eur J Epidemiol 28: 25–33, 2013
30. Mihaescu R, van Zitteren M, van Hoek M, Sijbrands EJ, Uitterlinden AG, Witteman JC, Hofman A, Hunink MG, van Duijn CM, Janssens AC: Improvement of risk prediction by genomic profiling: Reclassification measures versus the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Am J Epidemiol 172: 353–361, 2010
31. Kerr KF, Wang Z, Janes H, McClelland RL, Psaty BM, Pepe MS: Net reclassification indices for evaluating risk prediction instruments: A critical review. Epidemiology 25: 114–121, 2014
32. Hilden J, Gerds TA: A note on the evaluation of novel biomarkers: Do not rely on integrated discrimination improvement and net reclassification index [published online ahead of print April 2, 2014]. Stat Med doi: 10.1002/sim.5804
33. Pepe MS, Fang J, Feng Z, Gerds T, Hilden J: The net reclassification index (NRI): A misleading measure of prediction improvement with miscalibrated or overfit models. UW Biostatistics Working Paper Series, 2013
34. Pepe MS, Janes H, Li CI: Net risk reclassification p values: Valid or misleading? J Natl Cancer Inst 106: dju041, 2014
35. Pickering JW, Endre ZH: New metrics for assessing diagnostic potential of candidate biomarkers. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 7: 1355–1364, 2012
36. Kerr KF, McClelland RL, Brown ER, Lumley T: Evaluating the incremental value of new biomarkers with integrated discrimination improvement. Am J Epidemiol 174: 364–374, 2011
37. Uno H, Tian L, Cai T, Kohane IS, Wei LJ: A unified inference procedure for a class of measures to assess improvement in risk prediction systems with survival data. Stat Med 32: 2430–2442, 2013
38. Peirce CS: The numerical measure of the success of predictions. Science 4: 453–454, 1884