Clinical Chemistry Link to Randox Laboratories Web Site spacer gif
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Clinical Chemistry 0: clinchem.2007.096529v1, 2007; 10.1373/clinchem.2007.096529
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
clinchem.2007.096529v1
54/1/17    most recent
Right arrow Submit an electronic Letter to
the Editor about this paper
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cook, N. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Cook, N. R.

Received on August 15, 2007
Accepted on October 29, 2007

Minireview

Statistical Evaluation of Prognostic vs Diagnostic Models: Beyond the ROC Curve

Nancy R. Cook 1

1 From the Division of Preventive Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham, and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, and Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic and prognostic or predictive models serve different purposes. Whereas diagnostic models are usually used for classification, prognostic models incorporate the dimension of time, adding a stochastic element.

CONTENT: The ROC curve is typically used to evaluate clinical utility for both diagnostic and prognostic models. This curve assesses how well a test or model discriminates, or separates individuals into two classes, such as diseased and nondiseased. A strong risk predictor, such as lipids for cardiovascular disease, may have limited impact on the area under the curve, called the AUC or c-statistic, even if it alters predictive values. Calibration, measuring whether predicted probabilities agree with observed proportions, is another component of model accuracy important to assess. Reclassification can directly compare the clinical impact of two models by determining how many individuals would be reclassified into clinically relevant risk strata. For example, adding high-sensitivity C-reactive protein and family history to prediction models for cardiovascular disease using traditional risk factors moves approximately 30% of those at intermediate risk levels, such as 5%–10% or 10%–20% 10-year risk, into higher or lower risk categories, despite little change in the c-statistic. A calibration statistic can asses how well the new predicted values agree with those observed in the cross-classified data.

SUMMARY: Although it is useful for classification, evaluation of prognostic models should not rely solely on the ROC curve, but should assess both discrimination and calibration. Risk reclassification can aid in comparing the clinical impact of two models on risk for the individual, as well as the population.




The following articles in journals at HighWire Press have cited this article:


Home page
StrokeHome page
T. Kurth and G. Logroscino
The Metabolic Syndrome: More Than the Sum of Its Components?
Stroke, April 1, 2008; 39(4): 1068 - 1069.
[Full Text] [PDF]




spacer gif
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Copyright © 2007 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.