Statistical methods to assess the prognostic value of risk prediction rules in clinical research.
Calibration
Discrimination
Prognostic research
Risk reclassification analysis
Journal
Aging clinical and experimental research
ISSN: 1720-8319
Titre abrégé: Aging Clin Exp Res
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101132995
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2021
Feb 2021
Historique:
received:
07
02
2020
accepted:
24
03
2020
pubmed:
3
4
2020
medline:
3
3
2021
entrez:
3
4
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Prognosis aims at estimating the future course of a given disease in probabilistic terms. As in diagnosis, where clinicians are interested in knowing the accuracy of a new test to identify patients affected by a given disease, in prognosis they wish to accurately identify patients at risk of a future event conditional to one or more prognostic factors. Thus, accurate risk predictions play a primary role in all fields of clinical medicine and in geriatrics as well because they can help clinicians to tailor the intensity of a treatment and to schedule clinical surveillance according to the risk of the concerned patient. Statistical methods able to evaluate the prognostic accuracy of a risk score demand the assessment of discrimination (the Harrell's C-index), calibration (Hosmer-May test) and risk reclassification abilities (IDI, an index of risk reclassification) of the same risk prediction rule whereas, in spite of the popular belief that traditional statistical techniques providing relative measures of effect (such as the hazard ratio derived by Cox regression analysis or the odds ratio obtained by logistic regression analysis) could be per se enough to assess the prognostic value of a biomarker or of a risk score. In this paper we provide a brief theoretical background of each statistical test and a practical approach to the issue. For didactic purposes, in the paper we also provide a dataset (n = 40) to allow the reader to train in the application of the proposed statistical methods.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32240502
doi: 10.1007/s40520-020-01542-y
pii: 10.1007/s40520-020-01542-y
doi:
Substances chimiques
Biomarkers
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
279-283Références
Harrell FE Jr, Lee KL, Mark DB (1996) Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Stat Med 15:361–387
doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19960229)15:4<361::AID-SIM168>3.0.CO;2-4
Crowson CS, Atkinson EJ, Therneau TM (2016) Assessing calibration of prognostic risk scores. Stat Methods Med Res 25:1692–1706
doi: 10.1177/0962280213497434
Pencina MJ, D'Agostino RB Jr, D'Agostino RB Jr et al (2008) Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: from area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond. Stat Med 27:157–172
doi: 10.1002/sim.2929
Kerkmeijer LG, Monninkhof EM, van Oort IM et al (2016) PREDICT: model for prediction of survival in localized prostate cancer. World J Urol 34:789–795
doi: 10.1007/s00345-015-1691-4
Schmoor C, Sauerbrei W, Schumacher M (2000) Sample size considerations for the evaluation of prognostic factors in survival analysis. Stat Med 19:441–452
doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(20000229)19:4<441::AID-SIM349>3.0.CO;2-N
Ash D, Flynn A, Battermann J et al (2000) ESTRO/EAU/EORTC recommendations on permanent seed implantation for localized prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 57:315–321
doi: 10.1016/S0167-8140(00)00306-6
Tripepi G, Heinze G, Jager KJ et al (2013) Risk prediction models. Nephrol Dial Transplant 28:1975–1980
doi: 10.1093/ndt/gft095