Integrating the predictiveness of a marker with its performance as a classifier

被引:224
作者
Pepe, Margaret S. [1 ,2 ]
Feng, Ziding [1 ]
Huang, Ying [2 ]
Longton, Gary [1 ]
Prentice, Ross [1 ]
Thompson, Ian M. [3 ]
Zheng, Yingye [1 ]
机构
[1] Fred Hutchinson Canc Res Ctr, Div Publ Hlth Sci, Biostat & Biomath Program, Seattle, WA 98109 USA
[2] Univ Washington, Seattle, WA 98195 USA
[3] Univ Texas Hlth Sci Ctr San Antonio, San Antonio, TX 78229 USA
关键词
biological markers; classification analysis; diagnostic tests; routine; epidemiologic methods; predictive value of tests; prostate-specific antigen; risk assessment; risk model;
D O I
10.1093/aje/kwm305
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
There are two popular statistical approaches to biomarker evaluation. One models the risk of disease (or disease outcome) with, for example, logistic regression. A marker is considered useful if it has a strong effect on risk. The second evaluates classification performance by use of measures such as sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and receiver operating characteristic curves. There is controversy about which approach is more appropriate. Moreover, the two approaches can give contradictory results on the same data. The authors present a new graphic, the predictiveness curve, which complements the risk modeling approach. It assesses the usefulness of a risk model when applied to the population. Although the predictiveness curve relates to classification performance measures, it also displays essential information about risk that is not displayed by the receiver operating characteristic curve. The authors propose that the predictiveness and classification performance of a marker, displayed together in an integrated plot, provide a comprehensive and cohesive assessment of a risk marker or model. The methods are demonstrated with data on prostate-specific antigen and risk factors from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial, 1993-2003.
引用
收藏
页码:362 / 368
页数:7
相关论文
共 22 条
[1]   Variations in lung cancer risk among smokers [J].
Bach, PB ;
Kattan, MW ;
Thornquist, MD ;
Kris, MG ;
Tate, RC ;
Barnett, MJ ;
Hsieh, LJ ;
Begg, CB .
JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2003, 95 (06) :470-478
[2]  
Bura E, 2001, BIOMETRICAL J, V43, P5, DOI 10.1002/1521-4036(200102)43:1<5::AID-BIMJ5>3.0.CO
[3]  
2-6
[4]   The effect of including C-reactive protein in cardiovascular risk prediction models for women [J].
Cook, Nancy R. ;
Buring, Julie E. ;
Ridker, Paul M. .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2006, 145 (01) :21-29
[5]  
Efron B., 1993, INTRO BOOTSTRAP MONO, DOI DOI 10.1201/9780429246593
[6]   On criteria for evaluating models of absolute risks [J].
Gail, MH ;
Pfeiffer, RM .
BIOSTATISTICS, 2005, 6 (02) :227-239
[7]   INCREMENTAL VALUE OF THE EXERCISE TEST FOR DIAGNOSING THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF CORONARY-ARTERY DISEASE [J].
GOLDMAN, L ;
COOK, EF ;
MITCHELL, N ;
FLATLEY, M ;
SHERMAN, H ;
ROSATI, R ;
HARRELL, F ;
LEE, K ;
COHN, PF .
CIRCULATION, 1982, 66 (05) :945-953
[8]   Evaluating the predictiveness of a continuous marker [J].
Huang, Ying ;
Pepe, Margaret Sullivan ;
Feng, Ziding .
BIOMETRICS, 2007, 63 (04) :1181-1188
[9]   TESTING THE FIT OF A REGRESSION-MODEL VIA SCORE TESTS IN RANDOM EFFECTS MODELS [J].
LECESSIE, S ;
VANHOUWELINGEN, HC .
BIOMETRICS, 1995, 51 (02) :600-614
[10]   A REVIEW OF GOODNESS OF FIT STATISTICS FOR USE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF LOGISTIC-REGRESSION MODELS [J].
LEMESHOW, S ;
HOSMER, DW .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1982, 115 (01) :92-106