ArticleResearch square2024
Comparing methods for risk prediction of multicategory outcomes: dichotomized logistic regression vs. multinominal logit regression.
Article in Research square, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Medical outcomes of interest to clinicians may have multiple categories. Researchers face several options for risk prediction of such outcomes, including dichotomized logistic regression and multinomial logit regression modeling. We aimed to compare these methods and provide practical guidance needed. Methods: We described dichotomized logistic regression and competing risks regression, and an alternative to standard multinomial logit regression, continuation-ratio logit regression for ordinal outcomes. We then applied these methods to develop prediction models of survival and growth outcomes based on the NICHD Extremely Preterm Birth Outcome Tool model. The statistical and practical advantages and flaws of these methods were examined and both discrimination and calibration of the estimated models were assessed. Results: The dichotomized logistic models and multinomial continuation-ratio logit model had similar discrimination and calibration in predicting death and survival without neurodevelopmental impairment. But the continuation-ratio logit model had better discrimination and calibration in predicting probabilities of neurodevelopmental impairment. The sum of predicted probabilities of outcome categories from the logistic models did not equal 100% for about half of the study infants, ranging from 87.7% to 124.0%, and the logistic model of neurodevelopmental impairment greatly overpredicted the risk among low-risk infants and underpredicted among high-risk infants. Conclusions: Estimating multiple logistic regression models of dichotomized outcomes may result in poorly calibrated predictions. For an outcome with multiple ordinal categories, continuation-ratio logit regression is a useful alternative to standard multinomial logit regression. It produces better calibrated predictions and has the advantages of simplicity in model interpretation and flexibility to include outcome category-specific predictors and random-effect terms for patient heterogeneity by hospital.
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.