ArticleStatistics in medicine2014
Reclassification of predictions for uncovering subgroup specific improvement.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Refinement of day 28 treatment response criteria for acute GVHD: a collaboration study of the JSTCT and MAGIC.Blood advances · 2025Article
- Predicting prognosis in ANCA-associated vasculitis with kidney involvement.Clinical kidney journal · 2025Article
- Early detection of ICU-acquired infections using high-frequency electronic health record data.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- Genome-wide polygenic risk scores predict risk of glioma and molecular subtypes.Neuro-oncology · 2024Article
- Simpson's paradox in the integrated discrimination improvement.Statistics in medicine · 2017Article
- Evaluating surrogate endpoints, prognostic markers, and predictive markers: Some simple themes.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2015Article
- How to interpret a small increase in AUC with an additional risk prediction marker: decision analysis comes through.Statistics in medicine · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Risk prediction models play an important role in prevention and treatment of several diseases. Models that are in clinical use are often refined and improved. In many instances, the most efficient way to improve a successful model is to identify subgroups for which there is a specific biological rationale for improvement and tailor the improved model to individuals in these subgroups, an approach especially in line with personalized medicine. At present, we lack statistical tools to evaluate improvements targeted to specific subgroups. Here, we propose simple tools to fill this gap. First, we extend a recently proposed measure, the Integrated Discrimination Improvement, using a linear model with covariates representing the subgroups. Next, we develop graphical and numerical tools that compare reclassification of two models, focusing only on those subjects for whom the two models reclassify differently. We apply these approaches to BRCAPRO, a genetic risk prediction model for breast and ovarian cancer, using data from MD Anderson Cancer Center. We also conduct a simulation study to investigate properties of the new reclassification measure and compare it with currently used measures. Our results show that the proposed tools can successfully uncover subgroup specific model improvements.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.