Cargando…

Repeatedly measured predictors: a comparison of methods for prediction modeling

BACKGROUND: In literature, not much emphasis has been placed on methods for analyzing repeatedly measured independent variables, even less so for the use in prediction modeling specifically. However, repeated measurements could especially be interesting for the construction of prediction models. The...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Welten, Marieke, de Kroon, Marlou L. A., Renders, Carry M., Steyerberg, Ewout W., Raat, Hein, Twisk, Jos W. R., Heymans, Martijn W.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6460730/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31093555
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41512-018-0024-7
_version_ 1783410371583803392
author Welten, Marieke
de Kroon, Marlou L. A.
Renders, Carry M.
Steyerberg, Ewout W.
Raat, Hein
Twisk, Jos W. R.
Heymans, Martijn W.
author_facet Welten, Marieke
de Kroon, Marlou L. A.
Renders, Carry M.
Steyerberg, Ewout W.
Raat, Hein
Twisk, Jos W. R.
Heymans, Martijn W.
author_sort Welten, Marieke
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In literature, not much emphasis has been placed on methods for analyzing repeatedly measured independent variables, even less so for the use in prediction modeling specifically. However, repeated measurements could especially be interesting for the construction of prediction models. Therefore, our objective was to evaluate different methods to model a repeatedly measured independent variable and a long-term fixed outcome variable into a prediction model. METHODS: Six methods to handle a repeatedly measured predictor were applied to develop prediction models. Methods were evaluated with respect to the models’ predictive quality (explained variance R(2) and the area under the curve (AUC)) and their properties were discussed. The models included overweight and BMI-standard deviation score (BMI-SDS) at age 10 years as outcome and seven BMI-SDS measurements between 0 and 5.5 years as longitudinal predictor. Methods for comparison encompassed developing models including: all measurements; a single (here: the last) measurement; a mean or maximum value of all measurements; changes between subsequent measurements; conditional measurements; and growth curve parameters. RESULTS: All methods, except for using the maximum or mean, resulted in prediction models for overweight of similar predictive quality, with adjusted Nagelkerke R(2) ranging between 0.230 and 0.244 and AUC ranging between 0.799 and 0.807. Continuous BMI-SDS prediction showed similar results. CONCLUSIONS: The choice of method depends on hypothesized predictor-outcome associations, available data, and requirements of the prediction model. Overall, the growth curve method seems to be the most flexible method capable of incorporating longitudinal predictor information without loss in predictive quality. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s41512-018-0024-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6460730
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64607302019-05-15 Repeatedly measured predictors: a comparison of methods for prediction modeling Welten, Marieke de Kroon, Marlou L. A. Renders, Carry M. Steyerberg, Ewout W. Raat, Hein Twisk, Jos W. R. Heymans, Martijn W. Diagn Progn Res Methodology BACKGROUND: In literature, not much emphasis has been placed on methods for analyzing repeatedly measured independent variables, even less so for the use in prediction modeling specifically. However, repeated measurements could especially be interesting for the construction of prediction models. Therefore, our objective was to evaluate different methods to model a repeatedly measured independent variable and a long-term fixed outcome variable into a prediction model. METHODS: Six methods to handle a repeatedly measured predictor were applied to develop prediction models. Methods were evaluated with respect to the models’ predictive quality (explained variance R(2) and the area under the curve (AUC)) and their properties were discussed. The models included overweight and BMI-standard deviation score (BMI-SDS) at age 10 years as outcome and seven BMI-SDS measurements between 0 and 5.5 years as longitudinal predictor. Methods for comparison encompassed developing models including: all measurements; a single (here: the last) measurement; a mean or maximum value of all measurements; changes between subsequent measurements; conditional measurements; and growth curve parameters. RESULTS: All methods, except for using the maximum or mean, resulted in prediction models for overweight of similar predictive quality, with adjusted Nagelkerke R(2) ranging between 0.230 and 0.244 and AUC ranging between 0.799 and 0.807. Continuous BMI-SDS prediction showed similar results. CONCLUSIONS: The choice of method depends on hypothesized predictor-outcome associations, available data, and requirements of the prediction model. Overall, the growth curve method seems to be the most flexible method capable of incorporating longitudinal predictor information without loss in predictive quality. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s41512-018-0024-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-02-13 /pmc/articles/PMC6460730/ /pubmed/31093555 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41512-018-0024-7 Text en © The Author(s) 2018 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 Methodology
Welten, Marieke
de Kroon, Marlou L. A.
Renders, Carry M.
Steyerberg, Ewout W.
Raat, Hein
Twisk, Jos W. R.
Heymans, Martijn W.
Repeatedly measured predictors: a comparison of methods for prediction modeling
title Repeatedly measured predictors: a comparison of methods for prediction modeling
title_full Repeatedly measured predictors: a comparison of methods for prediction modeling
title_fullStr Repeatedly measured predictors: a comparison of methods for prediction modeling
title_full_unstemmed Repeatedly measured predictors: a comparison of methods for prediction modeling
title_short Repeatedly measured predictors: a comparison of methods for prediction modeling
title_sort repeatedly measured predictors: a comparison of methods for prediction modeling
topic Methodology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6460730/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31093555
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41512-018-0024-7
work_keys_str_mv AT weltenmarieke repeatedlymeasuredpredictorsacomparisonofmethodsforpredictionmodeling
AT dekroonmarloula repeatedlymeasuredpredictorsacomparisonofmethodsforpredictionmodeling
AT renderscarrym repeatedlymeasuredpredictorsacomparisonofmethodsforpredictionmodeling
AT steyerbergewoutw repeatedlymeasuredpredictorsacomparisonofmethodsforpredictionmodeling
AT raathein repeatedlymeasuredpredictorsacomparisonofmethodsforpredictionmodeling
AT twiskjoswr repeatedlymeasuredpredictorsacomparisonofmethodsforpredictionmodeling
AT heymansmartijnw repeatedlymeasuredpredictorsacomparisonofmethodsforpredictionmodeling