Quantifying the impact of different approaches for handling continuous predictors on the performance of a prognostic model
Open accessAbstract
Continuous predictors are routinely encountered when developing a prognostic model. Investigators, who are often non‐statisticians, must decide how to handle continuous predictors in their models. Categorising continuous measurements into two or more categories has been widely discredited, yet is still frequently done because of its simplicity, investigator ignorance of the potential impact and of suitable alternatives, or to facilitate model uptake. We examine three broad approaches for handling continuous predictors on the performance of a prognostic model, including various methods of categorising predictors, modelling a linear relationship between the predictor and outcome and modelling a nonlinear relationship using fractional polynomials or restricted cubic splines. We compare the performance (measured by the c‐index, calibration and net benefit) of prognostic models built using each approach, evaluating them using separate data from that used to build them. We show that categorising continuous predictors produces models with poor predictive performance and poor clinical usefulness. Categorising continuous predictors is unnecessary, biologically implausible and inefficient and should not be used in prognostic model development. © 2016 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine published by 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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Dichotomising or categorising continuous predictors reduces information and diminishes statistical power.
“Dichotomising or categorising continuous predictors reduces information and diminishes statistical power and should be avoided.41 42”
From Developing clinical prediction models: a step-by-step guide (2024) · cites this paper as [42]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 56 · Cited by 185
- Authors
- Collins, G. S., Ogundimu, E. O., Cook, J. A., Manach, Y. L., & Altman, D. G.
- Affiliations
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences University of Oxford Windmill Road Oxford OX3 7LD U.K
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Population Health Research Institute (CA)
- Venue
- Statistics in Medicine
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2016-05-18
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 23
- Pages
- 4124-4135
- ISSN
- 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0258
- PMC
- PMC5026162
- OpenAlex
- W2400385987
- Cited by
- 185
- References
- 56
- Citations by year
- 2026: 30 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 2
- FWCI
- 13.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Statistics in Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Durham Research Online (Durham University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- Northumbria Research Link (Northumbria University) (acceptedVersion)
- Durham Research Online (Durham University) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
- Durham Research Online (Durham University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Medical Research Council (G1100513)
- Medical Research Council Prognosis Research Strategy (PROGRESS) Partnership (G0902393/99558)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Inference
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
- Keywords
- continuous predictors, prognostic model development, fractional polynomials, restricted cubic splines, nonlinear relationship, concordance index, calibration, net benefit, model performance comparison
- MeSH terms
- Algorithms, Humans, Prognosis, Models, Statistical
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