Methods for evaluating prediction performance of biomarkers and tests

Lecture Notes in Statistics

Volumn 215, Issue , 2013, Pages 107-142

  Pepe, Margaret ^a,b   Janes, Holly ^a  

^a Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; FORECASTING;

CLINICAL OUTCOME; PREDICTION PERFORMANCE; RISK MODEL; SHORT COURSE;

RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 84945926838     PISSN: 09300325     EISSN: 21977186     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-8981-8_7     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (32)

1. Baker, S.: Putting risk prediction in perspective: relative utility curves. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 101(22), 1538–1542 (2009)
2. Baker, S., Kramer, B.: Evaluating a new marker for risk prediction: decision analysis to the rescue. Discov. Med. 14(76), 181–188 (2012)
3. Bura, E., Gastwirth, J.: The binary regression quantile plot: assessing the importance of predictors in binary regression visually. Biom. J. 43(1), 5–21 (2001)
4. Cook, N.: Use and misuse of the receiver operating characteristic curve in risk prediction. Circulation 115(7), 928–935 (2007)
5. Cook, N., Ridker, P.: Advances in measuring the effect of individual predictors of cardiovascular risk: the role of reclassification measures. Ann. Intern. Med. 150(11), 795–802 (2009)
6. Gail, M., Costantino, J.: Validating and improving models for projecting the absolute risk of breast cancer. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 93(5), 334–335 (2001)
7. Gail, M., Pfeiffer, R.: On criteria for evaluating models of absolute risk. Biostatistics 6(2), 227–239 (2005)
8. Gu, W., Pepe, M.: Measures to summarize and compare the predictive capacity of markers. Int. J. Biostat. 5(1), Article 27 (2009). doi:10.2202/1557-4679.1188
9. Harrell, F.: Regression Modeling Strategies: With Applications to Linear Models, Logistic Regression, and Survival Analysis. Springer, New York (2001)
10. Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., Friedman, J.: The Elements of Statistical Learning. Springer, New York (2001)
11. Huang, Y., Pepe, M.: A parametric ROC model-based approach for evaluating the predictiveness of continuous markers in case-control studies. Biometrics 65(4), 1133–1144 (2009)
12. Huang, Y., Pepe, M.S.: Semiparametric methods for evaluating the covariate-specific predictiveness of continuous markers in matched case-control studies. J. R. Stat. Soc., Ser. C (Appl. Stat.) 59(3), 437–456 (2010)
13. Janes, H., Pepe, M.S., Bossuyt, P.M., Barlow, W.E.: Measuring the performance of markers for guiding treatment decisions. Ann. Intern. Med. 154, 253–259 (2011)
14. Kerr, K.F., McClelland, R.L., Brown, E.R., Lumley, T.: Evaluating the incremental value of new biomarkers with integrated discrimination improvement. Am. J. Epidemiol. 174(3), 364–374 (2011)
15. Lemeshow, S., Hosmer Jr, D.: A review of goodness of fit statistics for use in the development of logistic regression models. Am. J. Epidemiol. 115(1), 92–106 (1982)
16. Parikh, C.R., Devarajan, P., Zappitelli, M., Sint, K., Thiessen-Philbrook, H., Li, S., Kim, R.W., Koyner, J.L., Coca, S.G., Edelstein, C.L., Shlipak, M.G., Garg, A.X., Krawczeski, C.D., TRIBE-AKI Consortium: Postoperative biomarkers predict acute kidney injury and poor outcomes after pediatric cardiac surgery. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 22(9), 1737–1747 (2011)
17. Pencina, M., D’Agostino, R., D’Agostino, R., Vasan, R.: Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: from area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond. Stat. Med. 27(2), 157–172 (2008)
18. Pencina, M., D’Agostino Sr., R., Steyerberg, E.: Extensions of net reclassification improvement calculations to measure usefulness of new biomarkers. Stat. Med. 30(1), 11–21 (2011)
19. Pepe, M.: Problems with risk reclassification methods for evaluating prediction models. Am. J. Epidemiol. 173(11), 1327 (2011)
20. Pepe, M., Janes, H.: Gauging the performance of SNPs, biomarkers, and clinical factors for predicting risk of breast cancer. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 100(14), 978–979 (2008)
21. Pepe, M., Feng, Z., Gu, J.: Comments on ‘Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: from area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond’ by MJ Pencina et al. Stat. Med. 27(2), 173–181 (2008). doi:10.1002/sim.2929
22. Pepe, M., Feng, Z., Huang, Y., Longton, G., Prentice, R., Thompson, I., Zheng, Y.: Integrating the predictiveness of a marker with its performance as a classifier. Am. J. Epidemiol. 167(3), 362 (2008)
23. Pepe, M., Kerr, K., Longton, G., Wang, Z.: Testing for improvement in prediction model performance. Stat. Med. 32(9), 1467–1482 (2013)
24. Pfeiffer, R., Gail, M.: Two criteria for evaluating risk prediction models. Biometrics 67(3), 1057–1065 (2011)
25. Sargent, D.J., Conley, B.A., Allegra, C., Collette, L.: Clinical trial designs for predictive marker validation in cancer treatment trials. J. Clin. Oncol. 23(9), 2020–2027 (2005)
26. Seymour, C.W., Kahn, J.M., Cooke, C.R., Watkins, T.R., Heckbert, S.R., Rea, T.D.: Prediction of critical illness during out-of-hospital emergency care. JAMA 304(7), 747–754 (2010)
27. Steyerberg, E.: Clinical Prediction Models: A Practical Approach to Development, Validation, and Updating. Springer, New York (2009)
28. Steyerberg, E., Borsboom, G., van Houwelingen, H., Eijkemans, M., Habbema, J.: Validation and updating of predictive logistic regression models: a study on sample size and shrinkage. Stat. Med. 23(16), 2567–2586 (2004)
29. Vickers, A., Elkin, E.: Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models. Med. Decis. Mak. 26(6), 565 (2006)
30. Vickers, A.J., Kattan, M.W., Daniel, S.: Method for evaluating prediction models that apply the results of randomized trials to individual patients. Trials 5, 8–14 (2007)
31. Vickers, A.J., Cronin, A.M., Begg, C.B.: One statistical test is sufficient for assessing new predictive markers. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 11, 13 (2011)
32. Wilson, P., D’Agostino, R., Levy, D., Belanger, A., Silbershatz, H., Kannel, W.: Prediction of coronary heart disease using risk factor categories. Circulation 97(18), 1837–1847 (1998)