There are two popular statistical approaches to biomarker evaluation. One models the risk of disease (or disease outcome) using, for example, logistic regression. A marker is useful if it has a strong effect on risk. The second evaluates classification performance using measures such as sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and ROC curves. There is controversy about which approach is most appropriate. Moreover, the two approaches often give contradictory results on the same data. We present a new graphic, the predictiveness curve, that complements the risk modeling approach. It assesses the usefulness of a risk model when applied to the population. In addition, the predictiveness curve relates to classification perfo...
Consider a set of baseline predictors X to predict a binary outcome D and let Y be a novel marker o...
textabstractBackground: New markers hold the promise of improving risk prediction for individual pat...
Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/86830/1/j.1467-9876.2011.00761.x.pdfhtt...
There are two popular statistical approaches to biomarker evaluation. One models the risk of disease...
Consider a continuous marker for predicting a binary outcome. For example, serum concentration of pr...
This chapter describes and critiques methods for evaluating the performance of markers to predict ri...
The predictiveness curve shows the population distribution of risk endowed by a marker or risk predi...
The performance of a well calibrated risk model, Risk(Y)=P(D=1|Y), can be characterized by the popul...
No single biomarker for cancer is considered adequately sensitive and specific for cancer screening....
It is agreed among biostatisticians that prediction models for binary outcomes should satisfy two es...
A marker\u27s capacity to predict risk of a disease depends on disease prevalence in the target popu...
A marker's capacity to predict risk of a disease depends on disease prevalence in the target po...
To assess the value of a continuous marker in predicting the risk of a disease, a graphical tool cal...
The predictive capacity of a marker in a population can be described using the population distributi...
A marker that is strongly associated with outcome (or disease) is often assumed to be effective for ...
Consider a set of baseline predictors X to predict a binary outcome D and let Y be a novel marker o...
textabstractBackground: New markers hold the promise of improving risk prediction for individual pat...
Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/86830/1/j.1467-9876.2011.00761.x.pdfhtt...
There are two popular statistical approaches to biomarker evaluation. One models the risk of disease...
Consider a continuous marker for predicting a binary outcome. For example, serum concentration of pr...
This chapter describes and critiques methods for evaluating the performance of markers to predict ri...
The predictiveness curve shows the population distribution of risk endowed by a marker or risk predi...
The performance of a well calibrated risk model, Risk(Y)=P(D=1|Y), can be characterized by the popul...
No single biomarker for cancer is considered adequately sensitive and specific for cancer screening....
It is agreed among biostatisticians that prediction models for binary outcomes should satisfy two es...
A marker\u27s capacity to predict risk of a disease depends on disease prevalence in the target popu...
A marker's capacity to predict risk of a disease depends on disease prevalence in the target po...
To assess the value of a continuous marker in predicting the risk of a disease, a graphical tool cal...
The predictive capacity of a marker in a population can be described using the population distributi...
A marker that is strongly associated with outcome (or disease) is often assumed to be effective for ...
Consider a set of baseline predictors X to predict a binary outcome D and let Y be a novel marker o...
textabstractBackground: New markers hold the promise of improving risk prediction for individual pat...
Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/86830/1/j.1467-9876.2011.00761.x.pdfhtt...