1 / 24

Ewout W. Steyerberg Professor of Medical Decision Making Dept of Public Health, Erasmus MC,

Assessing the additional value of diagnostic markers: a comparison of traditional and novel measures. Ewout W. Steyerberg Professor of Medical Decision Making Dept of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands E.Steyerberg@ErasmusMC.nl Birmingham, July 2, 2010.

ssnyder
Télécharger la présentation

Ewout W. Steyerberg Professor of Medical Decision Making Dept of Public Health, Erasmus MC,

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Assessing the additional value of diagnostic markers: a comparison of traditional and novel measures Ewout W. Steyerberg Professor of Medical Decision Making Dept of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands E.Steyerberg@ErasmusMC.nl Birmingham, July 2, 2010

  2. Introduction: additional value of a diagnostic marker • Usefulness / Clinical utility: what do we mean exactly? • Evaluation of predictions • Ordering: concordance statistic (c, or AUC) • Evaluation of decisions • Net Reclassification Index (NRI), very popular • Net Benefit (NB): decision-analytic, not popular • Adding a marker to a model • Statistical significance? Simple LR testing; not an issue • Clinical usefulness: measurement worth the costs?

  3. Overview Hypotheses: NRI is closely related to AUC NRI may be misleading

  4. Addition of a marker to a model • Typically small improvement in discriminative ability according to c statistic • c stat blamed for being insensitive

  5. Net Reclassification Index: (move up | event– move down | event) + (move down | non-event – move up | non-event ) = improvement in sensitivity + improvement in specificity

  6. Pencina example

  7. 29 22/183=12% 7 173 1/3081=0.03% 174

  8. Enthusiasm

  9. History of NRI • Many object to AUC • Cook: Reclassification provides insight • Pencina: Net reclassification is what counts • Many: Enthusiasm • Objections, 8 LTTEs Stat Med 2008a) Relationships to other measures Reply: agreeb) Greenland +Vickers/Steyerberg: Need to weight consequences Reply: implicit weighting by prevalence

  10. 5a) NRI ‘a better measure’? • NRI requires classification • Simplest case: binary (high vs low risk) • If binary, easy to calculate sensitivity and specificity • NRI = delta sens + delta spec, reminds us of Youden Index • Youden Index = sens + spec – 1 • NRI = delta Youden Index

  11. NRI better than AUC? • Binary ROC curve • AUC = (sens+spec) / 2 • NRI = delta sens + delta spec • NRI = 2 x delta AUC ! • Conclusion: NRI misleading in claiming being ‘better’ than AUC 1. from predictions to classification 2. 2 x delta AUC

  12. 5b) Weighting‘absurd”

  13. Chapter 16- Google books- Orderhttp://www.clinicalpredictionmodels.orghttp://www.springer.com/978-0-387-77243-1

  14. Evaluation of decisions Clinically meaningful cut-off (or threshold) for the probability: pt pt reflects relative true-positive vs weight false-positive decisions e.g. if pt = 50%, wTP=wFPif pt = 20%, wTP = 4 times wFP Net Benefit: (TP – w FP) / N, with w = harm / benefit = pt / (1 – pt) (Pierce 1884, Vickers 2006) If pt = 50%, w =.5 / (1 – .5) = 1if pt = 20%, w =.2 / (1 – .2) = 1/4 Net Reclassification Index: NRI = improvement in sens + improvement in spec Implicit weighting by non-event odds: (1 – Prevalence) / Prevalence Hence inconsistent if pt≠ Prevalence

  15. Overview Hypotheses: NRI is closely related to AUC NRI may be misleading Practical application: Additional value depends on Measure chosen: AUC, NRI, NB Reference model used Coding of a marker: dichotomous / continuous

  16. Case study Testicular cancer: prediction of residual tumor after chemotherapy N=544, 299 tumor (55%) Reference models Postchemotherapy mass size … + reduction in size + primary histology 3 tumor markers AFP: abnormal vs normal HCG: abnormal vs normal LDH: abnormal vs normal and continuous: log(LDH)

  17. Evaluation of predictions • LR and AUC (c) same pattern • Reference model matters; dichotomization harms

  18. Evaluation of decisions at 20% and 55% thresholds Net Benefit and NRI consistent at 55% (=prevalence) threshold, not 20%

  19. Conclusions • Judgment of additional value depends on the measure chosen; the reference model; coding of the marker. • A decision-analytic perspective is not compatible with an overall judgment as obtained from the AUC in ROC analysis nor with NRI. • The current practice of reporting AUC and NRI as measures of usefulness needs to be replaced by routinely reporting net benefit analyses. • Further work:- NRI and NB for 2 decisions, e.g. CVD 5% and 20% thresholds- link to decision analysis / cost-effectiveness analysis

  20. References Vickers AJ, Elkin EB: Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models.Med Decis Making 26:565-74, 2006 Steyerberg EW, Vickers AJ: Decision Curve Analysis: A Discussion. Med Decis Making 28; 146, 2008 Steyerberg EW, Vickers AJ, Cook NR, et al. Assessing the performance of prediction models: a framework for some traditional and novel measures. Epidemiology, Jan 2010

  21. From 1 cutoff to consecutive cutoffs Sensitivity and specificity  ROC curve Net benefit  decision curve

  22. ROC curves

  23. Decision curves

More Related