Cargando…

Improving prediction models with new markers: a comparison of updating strategies

BACKGROUND: New markers hold the promise of improving risk prediction for individual patients. We aimed to compare the performance of different strategies to extend a previously developed prediction model with a new marker. METHODS: Our motivating example was the extension of a risk calculator for p...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nieboer, D., Vergouwe, Y., Ankerst, Danna P., Roobol, Monique J., Steyerberg, Ewout W.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5039804/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27678479
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0231-2
_version_ 1782456134225887232
author Nieboer, D.
Vergouwe, Y.
Ankerst, Danna P.
Roobol, Monique J.
Steyerberg, Ewout W.
author_facet Nieboer, D.
Vergouwe, Y.
Ankerst, Danna P.
Roobol, Monique J.
Steyerberg, Ewout W.
author_sort Nieboer, D.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: New markers hold the promise of improving risk prediction for individual patients. We aimed to compare the performance of different strategies to extend a previously developed prediction model with a new marker. METHODS: Our motivating example was the extension of a risk calculator for prostate cancer with a new marker that was available in a relatively small dataset. Performance of the strategies was also investigated in simulations. Development, marker and test sets with different sample sizes originating from the same underlying population were generated. A prediction model was fitted using logistic regression in the development set, extended using the marker set and validated in the test set. Extension strategies considered were re-estimating individual regression coefficients, updating of predictions using conditional likelihood ratios (LR) and imputation of marker values in the development set and subsequently fitting a model in the combined development and marker sets. Sample sizes considered for the development and marker set were 500 and 100, 500 and 500, and 100 and 500 patients. Discriminative ability of the extended models was quantified using the concordance statistic (c-statistic) and calibration was quantified using the calibration slope. RESULTS: All strategies led to extended models with increased discrimination (c-statistic increase from 0.75 to 0.80 in test sets). Strategies estimating a large number of parameters (re-estimation of all coefficients and updating using conditional LR) led to overfitting (calibration slope below 1). Parsimonious methods, limiting the number of coefficients to be re-estimated, or applying shrinkage after model revision, limited the amount of overfitting. Combining the development and marker set using imputation of missing marker values approach led to consistently good performing models in all scenarios. Similar results were observed in the motivating example. CONCLUSION: When the sample with the new marker information is small, parsimonious methods are required to prevent overfitting of a new prediction model. Combining all data with imputation of missing marker values is an attractive option, even if a relatively large marker data set is available. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-016-0231-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5039804
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50398042016-10-05 Improving prediction models with new markers: a comparison of updating strategies Nieboer, D. Vergouwe, Y. Ankerst, Danna P. Roobol, Monique J. Steyerberg, Ewout W. BMC Med Res Methodol Research Article BACKGROUND: New markers hold the promise of improving risk prediction for individual patients. We aimed to compare the performance of different strategies to extend a previously developed prediction model with a new marker. METHODS: Our motivating example was the extension of a risk calculator for prostate cancer with a new marker that was available in a relatively small dataset. Performance of the strategies was also investigated in simulations. Development, marker and test sets with different sample sizes originating from the same underlying population were generated. A prediction model was fitted using logistic regression in the development set, extended using the marker set and validated in the test set. Extension strategies considered were re-estimating individual regression coefficients, updating of predictions using conditional likelihood ratios (LR) and imputation of marker values in the development set and subsequently fitting a model in the combined development and marker sets. Sample sizes considered for the development and marker set were 500 and 100, 500 and 500, and 100 and 500 patients. Discriminative ability of the extended models was quantified using the concordance statistic (c-statistic) and calibration was quantified using the calibration slope. RESULTS: All strategies led to extended models with increased discrimination (c-statistic increase from 0.75 to 0.80 in test sets). Strategies estimating a large number of parameters (re-estimation of all coefficients and updating using conditional LR) led to overfitting (calibration slope below 1). Parsimonious methods, limiting the number of coefficients to be re-estimated, or applying shrinkage after model revision, limited the amount of overfitting. Combining the development and marker set using imputation of missing marker values approach led to consistently good performing models in all scenarios. Similar results were observed in the motivating example. CONCLUSION: When the sample with the new marker information is small, parsimonious methods are required to prevent overfitting of a new prediction model. Combining all data with imputation of missing marker values is an attractive option, even if a relatively large marker data set is available. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-016-0231-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2016-09-27 /pmc/articles/PMC5039804/ /pubmed/27678479 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0231-2 Text en © The Author(s). 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Nieboer, D.
Vergouwe, Y.
Ankerst, Danna P.
Roobol, Monique J.
Steyerberg, Ewout W.
Improving prediction models with new markers: a comparison of updating strategies
title Improving prediction models with new markers: a comparison of updating strategies
title_full Improving prediction models with new markers: a comparison of updating strategies
title_fullStr Improving prediction models with new markers: a comparison of updating strategies
title_full_unstemmed Improving prediction models with new markers: a comparison of updating strategies
title_short Improving prediction models with new markers: a comparison of updating strategies
title_sort improving prediction models with new markers: a comparison of updating strategies
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5039804/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27678479
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0231-2
work_keys_str_mv AT nieboerd improvingpredictionmodelswithnewmarkersacomparisonofupdatingstrategies
AT vergouwey improvingpredictionmodelswithnewmarkersacomparisonofupdatingstrategies
AT ankerstdannap improvingpredictionmodelswithnewmarkersacomparisonofupdatingstrategies
AT roobolmoniquej improvingpredictionmodelswithnewmarkersacomparisonofupdatingstrategies
AT steyerbergewoutw improvingpredictionmodelswithnewmarkersacomparisonofupdatingstrategies