Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26504496›Full record

ArticleStatistics in biosciences2015

The Net Reclassification Index (NRI): a Misleading Measure of Prediction Improvement Even with Independent Test Data Sets.

Margaret S Pepe, Jing Fan, Ziding Feng, Thomas Gerds, Jorgen Hilden

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistics in biosciences, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 105 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
105citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–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

105 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. A multimodal model for clinically defined MCI integrating plasma biomarkers and brain microstructural features: a dual-cohort external validation study.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

45 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors.

Margaret S PepeBiostatistics and Biomathematics Program, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, 1100 Fairview Ave N, M2B500, Seattle, WA 98109 USA.
Jing FanBiostatistics and Biomathematics Program, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, 1100 Fairview Ave N, M2B500, Seattle, WA 98109 USA.
Ziding FengThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd. Houston, TX 77030 USA.
Thomas GerdsDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Copenhagen, Oster Farimsgade 5, Denmark.
Jorgen HildenDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Copenhagen, Oster Farimsgade 5, Denmark.

Funding

Translational Bioimaging Core Shared ResourceP30CA015704 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI Thomas James Lynch · 1985 to 2026
$296.4M
Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Kathrin Milbury · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
The Early Detection Research Network: Data Management and Coordinating CenterU24CA086368 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI RUTH D ETZIONI, Ziding Feng · 2010 to 2026
$75.7M
Statistical Methods for Medical Tests and BiomarkersR01GM054438 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI PEPE, MARGARET S. · 1996 to 2015
$4.7M
Statistical Methods for Evaluating Markers for Treatment SelectionR01CA152089 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI JANES, HOLLY · 2010 to 2021
$3.8M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA015704NCI NIH HHS R01 CA152089NCI NIH HHS U24 CA086368NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM054438
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Net Reclassification Index (NRI) is a very popular measure for evaluating the improvement in prediction performance gained by adding a marker to a set of baseline predictors. However, the statistical properties of this novel measure have not been explored in depth. We demonstrate the alarming result that the NRI statistic calculated on a large test dataset using risk models derived from a training set is likely to be positive even when the new marker has no predictive information. A related theoretical example is provided in which an incorrect risk function that includes an uninformative marker is proven to erroneously yield a positive NRI. Some insight into this phenomenon is provided. Since large values for the NRI statistic may simply be due to use of poorly fitting risk models, we suggest caution in using the NRI as the basis for marker evaluation. Other measures of prediction performance improvement, such as measures derived from the ROC curve, the net benefit function and the Brier score, cannot be large due to poorly fitting risk functions.

Indexed as

biomarkersclassificationdiagnostic testreceiver operating characteristicrisk prediction

Identifiers

PMID26504496
PMCPMC4615606

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.