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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |