ReviewRadiology2023
Net Reclassification Index Statistics Do Not Help Assess New Risk Models.
Review in Radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Artificial intelligence-based quantification of breast arterial calcifications to predict cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.European heart journal · 2026Article
- Does the pHoenix score reduce the inconclusive GERD diagnosis: a net reclassification index analysis.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Article
- Explant-based prognostic models for hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after liver transplantation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of hepatology · 2025Article
- Article
- Machine learning center-specific models show improved IVF live birth predictions over US national registry-based model.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Cardiac magnetic resonance versus echocardiography: An analysis examining risk reclassification by left ventricular ejection fraction and cost burden analysis.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2025Article
- Can nutritional scores improve the WHO calibrated non-laboratory risk prediction model for cardiovascular disease? Golestan Cohort Study.Journal of diabetes and metabolic disorders · 2024Article
- Aortic Pulse Wave Velocity Determined with Oscillometric Pulse Wave Analysis Algorithm Antares Is an Independent Predictor of Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events: A Prospective Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Computed tomography and coronary artery calcium score for screening of coronary artery disease and cardiovascular risk management in asymptomatic individuals.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2024Review
- [European radiology · 2024Article
- Super-resolution reconstruction improves multishell diffusion: using radiomics to predict adult-type diffuse glioma IDH and grade.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Dynamic changes in liver function tests do not correctly reclassify patients at risk of choledocholithiasis beyond ASGE 2019 criteria.Therapeutic advances in gastrointestinal endoscopyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
When evaluating a new risk factor for disease (eg, a measurement from imaging studies), many investigators examine its value above and beyond existing biomarkers and risk factors. They compare the performance of an "old" risk model using established predictors and a "new" risk model that adds the new factor. Net reclassification index (NRI) statistics are a family of metrics for comparing two risk models. NRI statistics became popular in some medical fields and have appeared in high-impact journals. This article reviews NRI statistics and describes several issues with them. Problems include unacceptable statistical behavior, incorrect statistical inferences, and lack of interpretability. NRI statistics are unhelpful (at best) and misleading (at worst).
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.