Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23592716›Full record

ArticleStatistical methods in medical research2016

Two-stage sampling designs for external validation of personal risk models.

Alice S Whittemore, Jerry Halpern

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistical methods in medical research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Assessing risk model calibration with missing covariates.Biostatistics (Oxford, England) · 2022
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Alice S WhittemoreDepartment of Health Research and Policy, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA alicesw@stanford.edu.
Jerry HalpernDepartment of Health Research and Policy, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.

Funding

CALIFORNIA TEACHERS STUDYR01CA077398 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI BERNSTEIN, LESLIE · 1998 to 2014
$29.7M
Statistical Methods for Genetic EpidemiologyR01CA094069 · NCI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI WHITTEMORE, ALICE · 2002 to 2016
$7.7M
Validating Cancer Risk Models: a Pilot Study to Evaluate Cost-efficient MethodsR03CA150136 · NCI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI WHITTEMORE, ALICE · 2010 to 2011
$170k
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA077398NCI NIH HHS R01 CA094069NCI NIH HHS R03 CA150136
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We propose a cost-effective sampling design and estimating procedure for validating personal risk models using right-censored cohort data. Validation involves using each subject's covariates, as ascertained at cohort entry, in a risk model (specified independently of the data) to assign him/her a probability of an adverse outcome within a future time period. Subjects are then grouped according to the magnitudes of their assigned risks, and within each group, the mean assigned risk is compared with the probability of outcome occurrence as estimated using the follow-up data. Such validation presents two complications. First, in the presence of right-censoring, estimating the probability of developing the outcomes before death requires competing risk analysis. Second, for rare outcomes, validation using the full cohort requires assembling covariates and assigning risks to thousands of subjects. This can be costly when some covariates involve analyzing biological specimens. A two-stage sampling design addresses this problem by assembling covariates and assigning risks only to those subjects most informative for estimating key parameters. We use this design to estimate the outcome probabilities needed to evaluate model performance and we provide theoretical and bootstrap estimates of their variances. We also describe how to choose two-stage designs with minimal efficiency loss for a parameter of interest when the quantities determining optimality are unknown at the time of design. We illustrate these methods by using subjects in the California Teachers Study to validate ovarian cancer risk models. We find that a design with optimal efficiency for one performance parameter need not be so for others, and trade-offs will be required. A two-stage design that samples all outcome-positive subjects and more outcome-negative than censored subjects will perform well in most circumstances. The methods are implemented in Risk Model Assessment Program, an R program freely available at http://med.stanford.edu/epidemiology/two-stage.html.

Indexed as

Ovarian NeoplasmsCaliforniaFemaleGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseHumansProbabilityRisk AssessmentSensitivity and SpecificityBootstrapcalibrationcompeting risksdiscriminationpersonal risk modelstwo-stage sampling

Identifiers

PMID23592716
PMCPMC3971015

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.