Cargando…

A comparison of the beta‐geometric model with landmarking for dynamic prediction of time to pregnancy

We conducted a simulation study to compare two methods that have been recently used in clinical literature for the dynamic prediction of time to pregnancy. The first is landmarking, a semi‐parametric method where predictions are updated as time progresses using the patient subset still at risk at th...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: van Eekelen, Rik, Putter, Hein, McLernon, David J., Eijkemans, Marinus J., van Geloven, Nan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6973003/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31738461
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bimj.201900155
_version_ 1783489954016395264
author van Eekelen, Rik
Putter, Hein
McLernon, David J.
Eijkemans, Marinus J.
van Geloven, Nan
author_facet van Eekelen, Rik
Putter, Hein
McLernon, David J.
Eijkemans, Marinus J.
van Geloven, Nan
author_sort van Eekelen, Rik
collection PubMed
description We conducted a simulation study to compare two methods that have been recently used in clinical literature for the dynamic prediction of time to pregnancy. The first is landmarking, a semi‐parametric method where predictions are updated as time progresses using the patient subset still at risk at that time point. The second is the beta‐geometric model that updates predictions over time from a parametric model estimated on all data and is specific to applications with a discrete time to event outcome. The beta‐geometric model introduces unobserved heterogeneity by modelling the chance of an event per discrete time unit according to a beta distribution. Due to selection of patients with lower chances as time progresses, the predicted probability of an event decreases over time. Both methods were recently used to develop models predicting the chance to conceive naturally. The advantages, disadvantages and accuracy of these two methods are unknown. We simulated time‐to‐pregnancy data according to different scenarios. We then compared the two methods by the following out‐of‐sample metrics: bias and root mean squared error in the average prediction, root mean squared error in individual predictions, Brier score and c statistic. We consider different scenarios including data‐generating mechanisms for which the models are misspecified. We applied the two methods on a clinical dataset comprising 4999 couples. Finally, we discuss the pros and cons of the two methods based on our results and present recommendations for use of either of the methods in different settings and (effective) sample sizes.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6973003
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69730032020-01-27 A comparison of the beta‐geometric model with landmarking for dynamic prediction of time to pregnancy van Eekelen, Rik Putter, Hein McLernon, David J. Eijkemans, Marinus J. van Geloven, Nan Biom J Survival and Duration Models We conducted a simulation study to compare two methods that have been recently used in clinical literature for the dynamic prediction of time to pregnancy. The first is landmarking, a semi‐parametric method where predictions are updated as time progresses using the patient subset still at risk at that time point. The second is the beta‐geometric model that updates predictions over time from a parametric model estimated on all data and is specific to applications with a discrete time to event outcome. The beta‐geometric model introduces unobserved heterogeneity by modelling the chance of an event per discrete time unit according to a beta distribution. Due to selection of patients with lower chances as time progresses, the predicted probability of an event decreases over time. Both methods were recently used to develop models predicting the chance to conceive naturally. The advantages, disadvantages and accuracy of these two methods are unknown. We simulated time‐to‐pregnancy data according to different scenarios. We then compared the two methods by the following out‐of‐sample metrics: bias and root mean squared error in the average prediction, root mean squared error in individual predictions, Brier score and c statistic. We consider different scenarios including data‐generating mechanisms for which the models are misspecified. We applied the two methods on a clinical dataset comprising 4999 couples. Finally, we discuss the pros and cons of the two methods based on our results and present recommendations for use of either of the methods in different settings and (effective) sample sizes. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019-11-18 2020-01 /pmc/articles/PMC6973003/ /pubmed/31738461 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bimj.201900155 Text en © 2019 The Authors. Biometrical Journal Published by WILEY‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Survival and Duration Models
van Eekelen, Rik
Putter, Hein
McLernon, David J.
Eijkemans, Marinus J.
van Geloven, Nan
A comparison of the beta‐geometric model with landmarking for dynamic prediction of time to pregnancy
title A comparison of the beta‐geometric model with landmarking for dynamic prediction of time to pregnancy
title_full A comparison of the beta‐geometric model with landmarking for dynamic prediction of time to pregnancy
title_fullStr A comparison of the beta‐geometric model with landmarking for dynamic prediction of time to pregnancy
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of the beta‐geometric model with landmarking for dynamic prediction of time to pregnancy
title_short A comparison of the beta‐geometric model with landmarking for dynamic prediction of time to pregnancy
title_sort comparison of the beta‐geometric model with landmarking for dynamic prediction of time to pregnancy
topic Survival and Duration Models
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6973003/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31738461
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bimj.201900155
work_keys_str_mv AT vaneekelenrik acomparisonofthebetageometricmodelwithlandmarkingfordynamicpredictionoftimetopregnancy
AT putterhein acomparisonofthebetageometricmodelwithlandmarkingfordynamicpredictionoftimetopregnancy
AT mclernondavidj acomparisonofthebetageometricmodelwithlandmarkingfordynamicpredictionoftimetopregnancy
AT eijkemansmarinusj acomparisonofthebetageometricmodelwithlandmarkingfordynamicpredictionoftimetopregnancy
AT vangelovennan acomparisonofthebetageometricmodelwithlandmarkingfordynamicpredictionoftimetopregnancy
AT vaneekelenrik comparisonofthebetageometricmodelwithlandmarkingfordynamicpredictionoftimetopregnancy
AT putterhein comparisonofthebetageometricmodelwithlandmarkingfordynamicpredictionoftimetopregnancy
AT mclernondavidj comparisonofthebetageometricmodelwithlandmarkingfordynamicpredictionoftimetopregnancy
AT eijkemansmarinusj comparisonofthebetageometricmodelwithlandmarkingfordynamicpredictionoftimetopregnancy
AT vangelovennan comparisonofthebetageometricmodelwithlandmarkingfordynamicpredictionoftimetopregnancy