ArticleBiometrics2022
Re-calibrating pure risk integrating individual data from two-phase studies with external summary statistics.
Article in Biometrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Data-integration with pseudoweights and survey-calibration: application to developing US-representative lung cancer risk models for use in screening.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A, (Statistics in Society) · 2025Article
- A constrained maximum likelihood approach to developing well-calibrated models for predicting binary outcomes.Lifetime data analysis · 2024Article
- Selection of a statistical analysis method for the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended endpoint for estimating the probability of favorable outcome in future severe TBI clinical trials.Statistics in medicine · 2023Article
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
Accurate risk assessment is critical in clinical decision-making. It entails the projected risk based on a risk prediction model agreeing with the observed risk in the target cohort. However, the model often over- or under-estimates the risk. Building a new model for the target cohort would be ideal but costly. It is therefore of great interest to recalibrate an existing model for the target cohort. Existing methods have been proposed to recalibrate the model by leveraging the disease incidence rates from the target cohort. However, they assume the same covariate distribution across cohorts and when the assumption is violated, the recalibrated model can be substantially biased. Further, recalibration is also complicated by the two-phase sampling design that is commonly used for developing risk prediction models. In this paper, we develop a weighted estimating-equation approach accounting for the two-phase design and combine it with a weighted empirical likelihood that leverages the summary information on both disease incidence rates and covariates from the target cohort. We provide a resampling-based inference procedure. Our extensive simulation results show that using the summary information from the target population, the proposed recalibration method yields nearly unbiased risk estimates under a wide range of scenarios. An application to a colorectal cancer study also illustrates that the proposed method yields a well-calibrated model in the target cohort.
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.