American Journal of Epidemiology Advance Access published online on November 2, 2007
American Journal of Epidemiology, doi:10.1093/aje/kwm305
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Practice of Epidemiology |
Integrating the Predictiveness of a Marker with Its Performance as a Classifier
1 Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA
2 University of Washington, Seattle, WA
3 University of Texas Health Sciences Center, San Antonio, TX
Correspondence to Dr. Margaret Sullivan Pepe, Biostatistics and Biomathematics Program, Public Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, 1100 Fairview Avenue North, M2-B500, Seattle, WA 98109 (e-mail: mspepe{at}u.washington.edu).
Received for publication March 15, 2007. Accepted for publication September 18, 2007.
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.
biological markers; classification analysis; diagnostic tests, routine; epidemiologic methods; predictive value of tests; prostate-specific antigen; risk assessment; risk model
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; FPF, false positive fraction; PSA, prostate-specific antigen; ROC, receiver operating characteristic; TPF, true positive fraction
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  Y. Huang and M. S. Pepe Semiparametric methods for evaluating risk prediction markers in case-control studies Biometrika, October 12, 2009; (2009) asp040v1. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. I. Buckley, R. Fu, M. Freeman, K. Rogers, and M. Helfand C-Reactive Protein as a Risk Factor for Coronary Heart Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analyses for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Ann Intern Med, October 6, 2009; 151(7): 483 - 495. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Helfand, D. I. Buckley, M. Freeman, R. Fu, K. Rogers, C. Fleming, and L. L. Humphrey Emerging Risk Factors for Coronary Heart Disease: A Summary of Systematic Reviews Conducted for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Ann Intern Med, October 6, 2009; 151(7): 496 - 507. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Z. Jin, Y. Cheng, W. Gu, Y. Zheng, F. Sato, Y. Mori, A. V. Olaru, B. C. Paun, J. Yang, T. Kan, et al. A Multicenter, Double-Blinded Validation Study of Methylation Biomarkers for Progression Prediction in Barrett's Esophagus Cancer Res., May 15, 2009; 69(10): 4112 - 4115. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. Janes, M. S. Pepe, and W. Gu Are Risk Stratification Tables the Best Way to Evaluate Model Performance? Ann Intern Med, March 17, 2009; 150(6): 428 - 428. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 W. Gu and M. S. Pepe Estimating the capacity for improvement in risk prediction with a marker Biostat., January 1, 2009; 10(1): 172 - 186. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Kriston, L. Holzel, A.-K. Weiser, M. M. Berner, and M. Harter Meta-analysis: Are 3 Questions Enough to Detect Unhealthy Alcohol Use? Ann Intern Med, December 16, 2008; 149(12): 879 - 888. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Cornell, C. D. Mulrow, and A. R. Localio Diagnostic Test Accuracy and Clinical Decision Making Ann Intern Med, December 16, 2008; 149(12): 904 - 906. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. McGeechan, P. Macaskill, L. Irwig, G. Liew, and T. Y. Wong Assessing New Biomarkers and Predictive Models for Use in Clinical Practice: A Clinician's Guide Arch Intern Med, November 24, 2008; 168(21): 2304 - 2310. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. Janes, M. S. Pepe, and W. Gu Assessing the Value of Risk Predictions by Using Risk Stratification Tables Ann Intern Med, November 18, 2008; 149(10): 751 - 760. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. S. Pepe and H. E. Janes Gauging the Performance of SNPs, Biomarkers, and Clinical Factors for Predicting Risk of Breast Cancer J Natl Cancer Inst, July 16, 2008; 100(14): 978 - 979. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|