Comparing models for quantitative risk assessment: An application to the European Registry of foreign body injuries in children

Statistical Methods in Medical Research

Volumn 25, Issue 4, 2016, Pages 1244-1259

  Berchialla, Paola ^a   Scarinzi, Cecilia ^b   Snidero, Silvia ^b   Gregori, Dario ^c   Lawson, Andrew B ^d   Lee, Duncan ^d   MacNab, Ying ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TURIN   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TURIN   (Italy)

^c UNIVERSITY OF PADOVA   (Italy)

^d NONE

Author keywords

Bayesian Network; children; classification trees; foreign body injuries; quantitative risk assessment

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK; BAYES THEOREM; BRONCHOSCOPY; CHILD; CONFERENCE PAPER; DISEASE CLASSIFICATION; DISEASE REGISTRY; ESOPHAGOSCOPY; FEMALE; FOREIGN BODY; FOREIGN BODY ASPIRATION; HUMAN; INFANT; INHALATION; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MALE; MEASUREMENT ACCURACY; NEWBORN; OTOSCOPY; PRODUCT SAFETY; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RANDOM FOREST; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICAL MODEL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EUROPE; PRESCHOOL CHILD; PROCEDURES; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; REGISTER;

ADOLESCENT; BAYES THEOREM; CHILD; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; EUROPE; FEMALE; FOREIGN BODIES; HUMANS; INFANT; INFANT, NEWBORN; MALE; REGISTRIES; RISK ASSESSMENT; ROC CURVE;

EID: 84983783245     PISSN: 09622802     EISSN: 14770334     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0962280213476167     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (43)

1. The Royal Society. Risk: analysis, perception and management: Report of a Royal Society Study Group. London, 1992.
2. Cox LA,. Risk analysis foundations, models and methods. ed. I.S.i.O.R.M. Science. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publisher, 2002.
3. Aven T, Kristensen V,. Perspectives on risk: review and discussion of the basis for establishing a unified and holistic approach. Reliability Eng Syst Saf 2005; 90 (1): 1-14.
4. Vose JD,. The application of quantitative risk assessment to microbial food safety. J Food Protect 1998; 61 (5): 640-648.
5. Wreathall J, Nemeth C,. Assessing risk: the role of probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) in patient safety improvement. Qual Saf Health Care 2004; 13 (3): 206-212.
6. Roy PK, Bhatt A, Rajagopal C,. Quantitative risk assessment for accidental release of titanium tetrachloride in a titanium sponge production plant. J Hazard Mater 2003; 102(2-3): 167-186.
7. Clark LH, Setzer RW, Barton HA,. Framework for evaluation of physiologically-based pharmacokinetic models for use in safety or risk assessment. Risk analysis 2004; 24 (6): 1697-1717.
8. Floerl O, Inglis GJ, Hayden BJ,. A risk-based predictive tool to prevent accidental introductions of nonindigenous marine species. Environ Manage 2005; 35 (6): 765-778.
9. Levy JI, Wolff SK, Evans JS,. A regression-based approach for estimating primary and secondary particulate matter intake fractions. Risk Analysis 2002; 22: 895-904.
10. Fenton NE, Krause P, Neil M,. Software Measurement: Uncertainty and Causal Modelling. IEEE Software 2002; 10 (4): 116-122.
11. Heckerman D, Mamdani A, Wellman M,. Real-world applications of Bayesian networks. Comm ACM 1995; 38 (3): 25-26.
12. Gregori D, et al. Foreign body causing and prolonging hospitalization in children 0-14 age: early results from the ESFBI Study. In: Healthcare System and Patient Safety, Florence, Italy: Taylor & Francis, 2005.
13. Rider G, et al. Quantitative risk analysis. Injury Contr Saf Promotion 2000; 7 (2): 115-133.
14. Rimell FL, et al. Characteristics of objects that cause choking in children. J Am Med Assoc 1996; 274 (22): 1763-1766.
15. Stool D, Rider G, Welling JR,. Human factors project: development of computer models of anatomy as an aid to risk management. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 1998; 43 (3): 217-227.
16. Gregori D,. The Susy Safe Project A web-based registry of foreign bodies injuries in children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2006; 70 (9): 1663-1664.
17. DTI. Choking risk to children under four from toys and other objects, London: DTI, 1999.
18. Kohavi R. A study of cross-validation and bootstrap for accuracy estimation and model selection. Proceedings of Fourteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), 1995. Montreal, Quebec, Canada: Morgan Kaufman Publishing, pp. 1137-1143.
19. Harrell JFE,. Regression modeling strategies, New York: Springer, 2001.
20. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2012.
21. Cover TM, Thomas JA,. Elements of information theory 2006; xxiii, 2nd edn, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Interscience, pp. 748-748.
22. Pearl J,. Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: networks of plausible inference, San Mateo, California: Morgan Kaufmann Publisher, 1991.
23. Law AM,. McGraw-Hill series in industrial engineering and management science. Simulation modeling and analysis 2007; xix, 4th edn, Boston; London: McGraw-Hill, pp. 768-768.
24. Priness I, Maimon O, Ben-Gal I,. Evaluation of gene-expression clustering via mutual information distance measure. BMC Bioinformatics 2007; 8: 111-111.
25. Jensen FV. Bayesian networks and decision graphs. Springer Verlag, 2001.
26. Pearl J,. Causality: models, reasoning and inference, Cambridge: CU Press, 2000.
27. Joseph A, Fenton NE, Neil M,. Predicting football results using Bayesian nets and other machine learning techniques. Know-Based Syst 2006; 19 (7): 544-553.
28. Matheny AP,. In: Routh D, (ed.) Accidental injuries, in Handbook of pediatric psychology, New York: Guilford, 1988.
29. Rivara FR, Mueller BA,. The epidemiology and causes of childhood injuries. J Soc Issues 1987; 43 (2): 13-21.
30. Health BMo,. A report on the health of British Columbians. Provincial health officer's annual report. Feature report: The health and well-being of British Columbia's children. B.M.o. Health, Editor: Victoria, BC, 1997.
31. Hackerman D. A tutorial on learning with Bayesian networks. In: Jordan MI (ed.) Learning Graphical models. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer, 1998, pp. 301-354.
32. Decision Systems Laboratory-University of Pittsburgh. GeNIe 2.0, http://www.sis.pitt.edu/∼genie/ (2006, assessed 3 September 2012).
33. Norsys Software Corporation. Netica v3.18, http://www.norsys.com/netica.html (2006, assessed 3 September 2012).
34. Ripley BD,. Pattern recognition and neural networks xi, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996, pp. 403-403.
35. Breiman L, et al. Classification and regression trees, New York: Chapman and Hall, 1984.
36. Berchialla P, et al. Predicting severity of foreign body injuries in children in upper airways: an approach based on regression trees. Risk Anal 2007; 27 (5): 1255-1263.
37. Venables WN, Ripley BD,. Modern applied statistics with S, 4th edn. New York: Springer, 2002.
38. Cox LA,. Detecting causal nonlinear exposure-response relations in epidemiological data. Dose Response 2006; 4 (2): 119-132.
39. McCullagh P and Nelder JA. Generalized linear models. 2nd edn. Monographs on statistics and applied probability; 37. London: Chapman and Hall. xix, 1989, pp. 511.
40. Breiman L,. Random forests. Mach Learning 2001; 45 (1): 5-32.
41. Rimell FL, et al. Characteristics of objects that cause choking in children. JAMA 1995; 274 (22): 1763-1766.
42. Gregori D, et al. Using data mining techniques in monitoring diabetes care. The simpler the better? J Med Syst 2011; 35 (2): 277-281.
43. Bartfay E, Mackillop WJ, Pater JL,. Comparing the predictive value of neural network models to logistic regression models on the risk of death for small-cell lung cancer patients. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 2006; 15 (2): 115-124.