Dataset Information

Identifying subjects who benefit from additional information for better prediction of the outcome variables.

ABSTRACT: Suppose that we are interested in using new bio- or clinical markers, in addition to the conventional markers, to improve prediction or diagnosis of the patient's clinical outcome. The incremental value from the new markers is typically assessed by averaging across patients in the entire study population. However, when measuring the new markers is costly or invasive, an overall improvement does not justify measuring the new markers in all patients. A more practical strategy is to utilize the patient's conventional markers to decide whether the new markers are needed for improving prediction of his/her health outcomes. In this article, we propose inference procedures for the incremental values of new markers across various subgroups of patients classified by the conventional markers. The resulting point and interval estimates can be quite useful for medical decision makers seeking to balance the predictive or diagnostic value of new markers against their associated cost and risk. Our proposals are theoretically justified and illustrated empirically with two real examples.

SUBMITTER: Tian L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2921328 | biostudies-literature | 2009 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Identifying subjects who benefit from additional information for better prediction of the outcome variables.

Tian L L Cai T T Wei L J LJ

Biometrics 20080929 3

Suppose that we are interested in using new bio- or clinical markers, in addition to the conventional markers, to improve prediction or diagnosis of the patient's clinical outcome. The incremental value from the new markers is typically assessed by averaging across patients in the entire study population. However, when measuring the new markers is costly or invasive, an overall improvement does not justify measuring the new markers in all patients. A more practical strategy is to utilize the pat ...[more]

PMID: 18945268

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn studies publishing identifying personal information, obtaining consent is regarded as necessary, as it is impossible to ensure complete anonymity. However, current journal practices around specific points to consider when obtaining consent, the contents of consent forms and how consent forms are managed have not yet been fully examined. This study was conducted to identify potential issues surrounding consent to publish identifying personal information.MethodsContent analysis was carried out on instructions for authors and consent forms developed by academic journals in four fields (as classified by Journal Citation Reports): medicine general and internal, genetics and heredity, pediatrics, and psychiatry. An online questionnaire survey of editors working for journals that require the submission of consent forms was also conducted.ResultsInstructions for authors were reviewed for 491 academic journals (132 for medicine general and internal, 147 for genetics and heredity, 100 for pediatrics, and 112 for psychiatry). Approximately 40% (203: 74 for medicine general and internal, 31 for genetics and heredity, 58 for pediatrics, and 40 for psychiatry) stated that subject consent was necessary. The submission of consent forms was required by 30% (154) of the journals studied, and 10% (50) provided their own consent forms for authors to use. Two journals mentioned that the possible effects of publication on subjects should be considered. Many journal consent forms mentioned the difficulties in ensuring complete anonymity of subjects, but few addressed the study objective, the subjects' right to refuse consent and the withdrawal of consent. The main reason for requiring the submission of consent forms was to confirm that consent had been obtained.ConclusionApproximately 40% of journals required subject consent to be obtained. However, differences were observed depending on the fields. Specific considerations were not always documented. There is a need to address issues around the study objective, subjects' right to refuse consent and the withdrawal of consent. Whether responsibility for ensuring that the consent form has been signed lies with publishers also needs to be discussed.

Project description:BackgroundTraumatic brain injuries (TBI) are associated with high risk of morbidity and mortality. Early outcome prediction in patients with TBI require reliable data input and stable prognostic models. The aim of this investigation was to analyze different CT classification systems and prognostic calculators in a representative population of TBI-patients, with known outcomes, in a neurointensive care unit (NICU), to identify the most suitable CT scoring system for continued research.Materials and methodsWe retrospectively included 158 consecutive patients with TBI admitted to the NICU at a level 1 trauma center in Sweden from 2012 to 2016. Baseline data on admission was recorded, CT scans were reviewed, and patient outcome one year after trauma was assessed according to Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS). The Marshall classification, Rotterdam scoring system, Helsinki CT score and Stockholm CT score were tested, in addition to the IMPACT and CRASH prognostic calculators. The results were then compared with the actual outcomes.ResultsGlasgow Coma Scale score on admission was 3-8 in 38%, 9-13 in 27.2%, and 14-15 in 34.8% of the patients. GOS after one year showed good recovery in 15.8%, moderate disability in 27.2%, severe disability in 24.7%, vegetative state in 1.3% and death in 29.7%. When adding the variables from the IMPACT base model to the CT scoring systems, the Stockholm CT score yielded the strongest relationship to actual outcome. The results from the prognostic calculators IMPACT and CRASH were divided into two subgroups of mortality (percentages); ≤50% (favorable outcome) and > 50% (unfavorable outcome). This yielded favorable IMPACT and CRASH scores in 54.4 and 38.0% respectively.ConclusionThe Stockholm CT score and the Helsinki score yielded the closest relationship between the models and the actual outcomes in this consecutive patient series, representative of a NICU TBI-population. Furthermore, the Stockholm CT score yielded the strongest overall relationship when adding variables from the IMPACT base model and would be our method of choice for continued research when using any of the current available CT score models.

Project description:Background and purposeBenefit of early endovascular treatment (EVT) for ischemic stroke varies considerably among patients. The MR PREDICTS decision tool, derived from MR CLEAN (Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke in the Netherlands), predicts outcome and treatment benefit based on baseline characteristics. Our aim was to externally validate and update MR PREDICTS with data from international trials and daily clinical practice.MethodsWe used individual patient data from 6 randomized controlled trials within the HERMES (Highly Effective Reperfusion Evaluated in Multiple Endovascular Stroke Trials) collaboration to validate the original model. Then, we updated the model and performed a second validation with data from the observational MR CLEAN Registry. Primary outcome was functional independence (defined as modified Rankin Scale score 0–2) 3 months after stroke. Treatment benefit was defined as the difference between the probability of functional independence with and without EVT. Discriminative performance was evaluated using a concordance (C) statistic.ResultsWe included 1242 patients from HERMES (633 assigned to EVT, 609 assigned to control) and 3156 patients from the MR CLEAN Registry (all of whom underwent EVT within 6.5 hours). The C-statistic for functional independence was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.72–0.77) in HERMES and, after model updating, 0.80 (0.78–0.82) in the Registry. Median predicted treatment benefit of routinely treated patients (Registry) was 10.3% (interquartile range, 5.8%–14.4%). Patients with low (<1%) predicted treatment benefit (n=135/3156 [4.3%]) had low rates of functional independence, irrespective of reperfusion status, suggesting potential absence of treatment benefit. The updated model was made available online for clinicians and researchers at www.mrpredicts.com.ConclusionsBecause of the substantial treatment effect and small potential harm of EVT, most patients arriving within 6 hours at an endovascular-capable center should be treated regardless of their clinical characteristics. MR PREDICTS can be used to support clinical judgement when there is uncertainty about the treatment indication, when resources are limited, or before a patient is to be transferred to an endovascular-capable center.

Dataset Information

Identifying subjects who benefit from additional information for better prediction of the outcome variables.

Publications

Identifying subjects who benefit from additional information for better prediction of the outcome variables.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets