Cargando…

Empirical evaluation of prediction intervals for cancer incidence

BACKGROUND: Prediction intervals can be calculated for predicting cancer incidence on the basis of a statistical model. These intervals include the uncertainty of the parameter estimates and variations in future rates but do not include the uncertainty of assumptions, such as continuation of current...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Møller, Bjørn, Weedon-Fekjær, Harald, Haldorsen, Tor
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2005
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180445/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15949034
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-5-21
_version_ 1782124598173630464
author Møller, Bjørn
Weedon-Fekjær, Harald
Haldorsen, Tor
author_facet Møller, Bjørn
Weedon-Fekjær, Harald
Haldorsen, Tor
author_sort Møller, Bjørn
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Prediction intervals can be calculated for predicting cancer incidence on the basis of a statistical model. These intervals include the uncertainty of the parameter estimates and variations in future rates but do not include the uncertainty of assumptions, such as continuation of current trends. In this study we evaluated whether prediction intervals are useful in practice. METHODS: Rates for the period 1993–97 were predicted from cancer incidence rates in the five Nordic countries for the period 1958–87. In a Poisson regression model, 95% prediction intervals were constructed for 200 combinations of 20 cancer types for males and females in the five countries. The coverage level was calculated as the proportion of the prediction intervals that covered the observed number of cases in 1993–97. RESULTS: Overall, 52% (104/200) of the prediction intervals covered the observed numbers. When the prediction intervals were divided into quartiles according to the number of cases in the last observed period, the coverage level was inversely proportional to the frequency (84%, 52%, 46% and 26%). The coverage level varied widely among the five countries, but the difference declined after adjustment for the number of cases in each country. CONCLUSION: The coverage level of prediction intervals strongly depended on the number of cases on which the predictions were based. As the sample size increased, uncertainty about the adequacy of the model dominated, and the coverage level fell far below 95%. Prediction intervals for cancer incidence must therefore be interpreted with caution.
format Text
id pubmed-1180445
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2005
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-11804452005-07-23 Empirical evaluation of prediction intervals for cancer incidence Møller, Bjørn Weedon-Fekjær, Harald Haldorsen, Tor BMC Med Res Methodol Research Article BACKGROUND: Prediction intervals can be calculated for predicting cancer incidence on the basis of a statistical model. These intervals include the uncertainty of the parameter estimates and variations in future rates but do not include the uncertainty of assumptions, such as continuation of current trends. In this study we evaluated whether prediction intervals are useful in practice. METHODS: Rates for the period 1993–97 were predicted from cancer incidence rates in the five Nordic countries for the period 1958–87. In a Poisson regression model, 95% prediction intervals were constructed for 200 combinations of 20 cancer types for males and females in the five countries. The coverage level was calculated as the proportion of the prediction intervals that covered the observed number of cases in 1993–97. RESULTS: Overall, 52% (104/200) of the prediction intervals covered the observed numbers. When the prediction intervals were divided into quartiles according to the number of cases in the last observed period, the coverage level was inversely proportional to the frequency (84%, 52%, 46% and 26%). The coverage level varied widely among the five countries, but the difference declined after adjustment for the number of cases in each country. CONCLUSION: The coverage level of prediction intervals strongly depended on the number of cases on which the predictions were based. As the sample size increased, uncertainty about the adequacy of the model dominated, and the coverage level fell far below 95%. Prediction intervals for cancer incidence must therefore be interpreted with caution. BioMed Central 2005-06-10 /pmc/articles/PMC1180445/ /pubmed/15949034 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-5-21 Text en Copyright © 2005 Møller et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Møller, Bjørn
Weedon-Fekjær, Harald
Haldorsen, Tor
Empirical evaluation of prediction intervals for cancer incidence
title Empirical evaluation of prediction intervals for cancer incidence
title_full Empirical evaluation of prediction intervals for cancer incidence
title_fullStr Empirical evaluation of prediction intervals for cancer incidence
title_full_unstemmed Empirical evaluation of prediction intervals for cancer incidence
title_short Empirical evaluation of prediction intervals for cancer incidence
title_sort empirical evaluation of prediction intervals for cancer incidence
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180445/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15949034
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-5-21
work_keys_str_mv AT møllerbjørn empiricalevaluationofpredictionintervalsforcancerincidence
AT weedonfekjærharald empiricalevaluationofpredictionintervalsforcancerincidence
AT haldorsentor empiricalevaluationofpredictionintervalsforcancerincidence