Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27431531›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2016

Using the weighted area under the net benefit curve for decision curve analysis.

Rajesh Talluri, Sanjay Shete

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing 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

39 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Evaluating clinical utility of multi-category outcome risk prediction models.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Rajesh TalluriDepartment of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1400 Pressler Dr, FCT4.6002, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Sanjay SheteDepartment of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1400 Pressler Dr, FCT4.6002, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. sshete@mdanderson.org.

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Scott Kopetz · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
Molecular Epidemiology of Neuropathic Pain in Head and Neck CancerR01DE022891 · NIDCR · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI REYES-GIBBY, CIELITO C, SHETE, SANJAY · 2012 to 2016
$3.0M
Genome Wide Association Study of Head and Neck CancerR01CA131324 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI SHETE, SANJAY · 2009 to 2013
$2.8M
Innovative Multidisciplinary Education: The Statistical Genetics of AddictionR25DA026120 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI CHANG, SHINE, SHETE, SANJAY · 2010 to 2014
$1.5M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672NCI NIH HHS R01 CA131324NIDA NIH HHS R25 DA026120NIDCR NIH HHS R01 DE022891
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRisk prediction models have been proposed for various diseases and are being improved as new predictors are identified. A major challenge is to determine whether the newly discovered predictors improve risk prediction. Decision curve analysis has been proposed as an alternative to the area under the curve and net reclassification index to evaluate the performance of prediction models in clinical scenarios. The decision curve computed using the net benefit can evaluate the predictive performance of risk models at a given or range of threshold probabilities. However, when the decision curves for 2 competing models cross in the range of interest, it is difficult to identify the best model as there is no readily available summary measure for evaluating the predictive performance. The key deterrent for using simple measures such as the area under the net benefit curve is the assumption that the threshold probabilities are uniformly distributed among patients.

methodsWe propose a novel measure for performing decision curve analysis. The approach estimates the distribution of threshold probabilities without the need of additional data. Using the estimated distribution of threshold probabilities, the weighted area under the net benefit curve serves as the summary measure to compare risk prediction models in a range of interest.

resultsWe compared 3 different approaches, the standard method, the area under the net benefit curve, and the weighted area under the net benefit curve. Type 1 error and power comparisons demonstrate that the weighted area under the net benefit curve has higher power compared to the other methods. Several simulation studies are presented to demonstrate the improvement in model comparison using the weighted area under the net benefit curve compared to the standard method.

conclusionsThe proposed measure improves decision curve analysis by using the weighted area under the curve and thereby improves the power of the decision curve analysis to compare risk prediction models in a clinical scenario.

Indexed as

Area Under CurveClinical Decision-MakingModels, StatisticalRisk AssessmentHumansArea under the curveClinical decision makingDecision curve analysisNet benefit curvesThreshold probabilities

Identifiers

PMID27431531
PMCPMC4949771

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.