Cited by 6,493Statistical Methods in EpidemiologyStatistical Methods and InferenceArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: From area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond

Open access
Pencina, Michael J., D' Agostino, Ralph B., D' Agostino, Ralph B., Vasan, Ramachandran S.·2008·Statistics in Medicine

Abstract

Identification of key factors associated with the risk of developing cardiovascular disease and quantification of this risk using multivariable prediction algorithms are among the major advances made in preventive cardiology and cardiovascular epidemiology in the 20th century. The ongoing discovery of new risk markers by scientists presents opportunities and challenges for statisticians and clinicians to evaluate these biomarkers and to develop new risk formulations that incorporate them. One of the key questions is how best to assess and quantify the improvement in risk prediction offered by these new models. Demonstration of a statistically significant association of a new biomarker with cardiovascular risk is not enough. Some researchers have advanced that the improvement in the area under the receiver‐operating‐characteristic curve (AUC) should be the main criterion, whereas others argue that better measures of performance of prediction models are needed. In this paper, we address this question by introducing two new measures, one based on integrated sensitivity and specificity and the other on reclassification tables. These new measures offer incremental information over the AUC. We discuss the properties of these new measures and contrast them with the AUC. We also develop simple asymptotic tests of significance. We illustrate the use of these measures with an example from the Framingham Heart Study. We propose that scientists consider these types of measures in addition to the AUC when assessing the performance of newer biomarkers. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/sim.2929

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 36

  1. Zhou X-H, Obuchowski NA, McClish DK. Statistical Methods in Diagnostic Medicine. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 2002.
  2. Pepe MS. The Statistical Evaluation of Medical Tests for Classification and Prediction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2003.
  3. Li J, Jiang B, Fine JP. Multicategory reclassification statistics for assessing improvements in diagnostic accuracy. Biostatistics. 2013;14(2):382-394.
  4. Li J, Fine JP. ROC analysis with multiple classes and multiple tests: methodology and its application in microarray studies. Biostatistics. 2008;9(3):566-576.
  5. Van Calster B, Vergouwe Y, Looman CWN, Van Belle V, Timmerman D, Steyerberg EW. Assessing the discriminative ability of risk models for more than two outcome categories. Eur J Epidemiol. 2012;27(10):761-770.
  6. Kwak C, Clayton-Matthews A. Multinomial logistic regression. Nursing Research. 2002;51(6):404-410.
  7. Vapnik V. Statistical Learning Theory. New York, NY: Wiley; 1998.
  8. Suykens JAK, Vandewalle J. Least squares support vector machine classifiers. Neural Process Lett. 1999;9(3):293-300.
  9. Crammer K, Singer Y. On the algorithmic implementation of multiclass kernel-based vector machines. J Mach Learn Res. 2001;2:265-292.
  10. Lee Y, Lin Y, Wahba G. Multicategory support vector machines, theory, and application to the classification of microarray data and satellite radiance data. J Am Stat Assoc. 2004;99(465):67-81.
  11. Liaw A, Wiener M. Classification and regression by randomforest. R News. 2002;2(3):18-22.
  12. Mika S, Ratsch G, Weston J, Scholkopf B, Mullers KR. Fisher discriminant analysis with kernels. In: Neural Networks for Signal Processing IX: Proceedings of the 1999 IEEE Signal Processing Society Workshop; 1999; Madison, WI.
  13. Schalkoff RJ. Artificial Neural Networks. Vol 1. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1997.
  14. Shore J, Johnson R. Axiomatic derivation of the principle of maximum entropy and the principle of minimum cross-entropy. IEEE Trans Inf Theory. 1980;26(1):26-37.
  15. Gardner MW, Dorling SR. Artificial neural networks (the multilayer perceptron)-a review of applications in the atmospheric sciences. Atmospheric Environment. 1998;32(14-15):2627-2636.
  16. Zhao K, Huang L. Minibatch and parallelization for online large margin structured learning. In: Proceedings of the 2013 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies; 2013; Atlanta, GA.
  17. Hecht-Nielsen R. Theory of the backpropagation neural network. Neural Networks. 1988;1(1):445-448.
  18. Krizhevsky A, Sutskever I, Hinton GE. Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 25 (NIPS Proceedings); 2012.
  19. Li J, Chow Y, Wong WK, Wong TY. Sorting multiple classes in multi-dimensional ROC analysis: parametric and nonparametric approaches. Biomarkers. 2014;19(1):1-8.
  20. Novoselova N, Beffa CD, Wang J, et al. HUM calculator and HUM package for R: easy-to-use software tools for multicategory receiver operating characteristic analysis. Bioinformatics. 2014;30(11):1635.
  21. Golub TR, Slonim DK, Tamayo P, et al. Molecular classification of cancer: class discovery and class prediction by gene expression monitoring. Science. 1999;286:531-537.
  22. Nakas CT, Yiannoutsos CT. Ordered multiple-class ROC analysis with continuous measurements. Statist Med. 2004;23(22):3437-3449.
  23. Cox DR, Wermuth N. A comment on the coefficient of determination for binary response. Am Stat. 1992;46(1):1-4.
  24. Menard S. Coefficients of determination for multiple logistic regression analysis. Am Stat. 2000;54(1):17-24.
  25. Hu B, Palta M, Shao J. Properties of R 2 statistics for logistic regression. Statist Med. 2006;25(8):1383-1395.
  26. Tjur T. Coefficients of determination in logistic regression models-a new proposal: the coefficient of discrimination. Am Stat. 2009;63(4):366-372.
  27. Van Calster B, Van Belle V, Vergouwe Y, Timmerman D, Van Huffel S, Steyerberg EW. Extending the c-statistic to nominal polytomous outcomes: The polytomous discrimination index. Statist Med. 2012;31(23):2610-2626.
  28. Pencina MJ, D'Agostino RB Sr, D'Agostino RB, Vasan RS Jr. Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: from area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond. Statist Med. 2008;27(2):157-172.
  29. Steyerberg EW, Vickers AJ, Cook NR, et al. Assessing the performance of prediction models, a framework for traditional and novel measures. Epidemiology. 2010;21(1):128-138.
  30. Pencina MJ, D'Agostino RB Sr, Steyerberg EW. Extensions of net reclassification improvement calculations to measure usefulness of new biomarkers. Statist Med. 2011;30(1):11-21.
  31. Pencina MJ, D'Agostino RB Sr, Demler OV. Novel metrics for evaluating improvement in discrimination: net reclassification and integrated discrimination improvements for normal variables and nested models. Statist Med. 2012;31(2):101-113.
  32. Austin PC, Steyerberg EW. Predictive accuracy of risk factors and markers: a simulation study of the effect of novel markers on different performance measures for logistic regression models. Statist Med. 2013;32(4):661-672.
  33. Pepe MS, Feng Z, Gu JW. Comments on 'Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: From area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond' by M. J. Pencina et al., Statistics in Medicine. Statist Med. 2008;27(2):173-181. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim. 2929 · DOI
  34. Hilden J, Gerds TA. A note on the evaluation of novel biomarkers: do not rely on integrated discrimination improvement and net reclassification index. Statist Med. 2014;33(19):3405-3414.
  35. Kerr KF, Wang Z, Janes H, McClelland RL, Psaty BM, Pepe MS. Net reclassification indices for evaluating risk prediction instruments: a critical review. Epidemiology. 2014;25(1):114-121.
  36. Hilden J. Commentary: on NRI, IDI, and "good-looking" statistics with nothing underneath. Epidemiology. 2014;25(2):265-267.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pencina, M. J., D' Agostino, R. B., D' Agostino, R. B., & Vasan, R. S.
Affiliations
Boston University (US)
Corresponding author
Pencina, Michael J.
Venue
Statistics in Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-06-13
Volume
27
Issue
2
Pages
157-172
ISSN
  • 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0258
OpenAlex
W2112316706
Cited by
6,493
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 421 · 2025: 235 · 2024: 258 · 2023: 290 · 2022: 329 · 2021: 401 · 2020: 379 · 2019: 336 · 2018: 319 · 2017: 375 · 2016: 433 · 2015: 433 · 2014: 452 · 2013: 516 · 2012: 436
FWCI
150.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Statistics in Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Ministry of Education, India
  • National Institutes of Health (n01hc25195-41-0-1)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (2K24 HL 04334, N01‐HC25195, K24HL004334)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Inference
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
cardiovascular risk prediction, biomarker analysis, area under the ROC curve, risk reclassification, Framingham Heart Study, preventive cardiology
MeSH terms
Cardiovascular Diseases, Humans, Risk Factors, ROC Curve, United States, Models, Statistical, Risk Assessment, Area Under Curve

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review