Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28399375›Full record

ArticleMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2017

Understanding the Value of Individualized Information: The Impact of Poor Calibration or Discrimination in Outcome Prediction Models.

Natalia Olchanski, Joshua T Cohen, Peter J Neumann, John B Wong, David M Kent

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Evaluating Risk Prediction with Data Collection Costs: Novel Estimation of Test Tradeoff Curves.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
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.

Natalia OlchanskiInstitute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA (NO, JTC, PJN, JBW, DMK).
Joshua T CohenInstitute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA (NO, JTC, PJN, JBW, DMK).
Peter J NeumannInstitute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA (NO, JTC, PJN, JBW, DMK).
John B WongInstitute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA (NO, JTC, PJN, JBW, DMK).
David M KentInstitute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA (NO, JTC, PJN, JBW, DMK).

Funding

Value of Personalized Risk InformationU01NS086294 · NINDS · TUFTS MEDICAL CENTER · PI KENT, DAVID M, NEUMANN, PETER · 2013 to 2017
$2.6M
NINDS NIH HHS U01 NS086294
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRisk prediction models allow for the incorporation of individualized risk and clinical effectiveness information to identify patients for whom therapy is most appropriate and cost-effective. This approach has the potential to identify inefficient (or harmful) care in subgroups at different risks, even when the overall results appear favorable. Here, we explore the value of personalized risk information and the factors that influence it.

methodsUsing an expected value of individualized care (EVIC) framework, which monetizes the value of customizing care, we developed a general approach to calculate individualized incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) as a function of individual outcome risk. For a case study (tPA v. streptokinase to treat possible myocardial infarction), we used a simulation to explore how an EVIC is influenced by population outcome prevalence, model discrimination (c-statistic) and calibration, and willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds.

resultsIn our simulations, for well-calibrated models, which do not over- or underestimate predicted v. observed event risk, the EVIC ranged from $0 to $700 per person, with better discrimination (higher c-statistic values) yielding progressively higher EVIC values. For miscalibrated models, the EVIC ranged from -$600 to $600 in different simulated scenarios. The EVIC values decreased as discrimination improved from a c-statistic of 0.5 to 0.6, before becoming positive as the c-statistic reached values of ~0.8.

conclusionsIndividualizing treatment decisions using risk may produce substantial value but also has the potential for net harm. Good model calibration ensures a non-negative EVIC. Improvements in discrimination generally increase the EVIC; however, when models are miscalibrated, greater discriminating power can paradoxically reduce the EVIC under some circumstances.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesTreatment OutcomeComputer SimulationCost-Benefit AnalysisCost of IllnessDecision MakingFibrinolytic AgentsHumansMyocardial InfarctionQuality-Adjusted Life YearsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRisk AssessmentStreptokinaseTissue Plasminogen ActivatorFibrinolytic AgentsStreptokinaseTissue Plasminogen Activatorgroup decision makingoutcomes researchquality of caretranslating research into practice

Identifiers

PMID28399375
PMCPMC5577366

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.