The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Building Multivariable Prognostic and Diagnostic Models: Transformation of the Predictors by Using Fractional Polynomials
Open accessAbstract
Summary: To be useful to clinicians, prognostic and diagnostic indices must be derived from accurate models developed by using appropriate data sets. We show that fractional polynomials, which extend ordinary polynomials by including non-positive and fractional powers, may be used as the basis of such models. We describe how to fit fractional polynomials in several continuous covariates simultaneously, and we propose ways of ensuring that the resulting models are parsimonious and consistent with basic medical knowledge. The methods are applied to two breast cancer data sets, one from a prognostic factors study in patients with positive lymph nodes and the other from a study to diagnose malignant or benign tumours by using colour Doppler blood flow mapping. We investigate the problems of biased parameter estimates in the final model and overfitting using cross-validation calibration to estimate shrinkage factors. We adopt bootstrap resampling to assess model stability. We compare our new approach with conventional modelling methods which apply stepwise variables selection to categorized covariates. We conclude that fractional polynomial methodology can be very successful in generating simple and appropriate models.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso
Tibshirani, R. (1996) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1996.tb02080.x · Cited by 51,482
Dangers of Using "Optimal" Cutpoints in the Evaluation of Prognostic Factors
Altman, D. G., Lausen, B., Sauerbrei, W., & Schumacher, M. (1994) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/86.11.829 · Cited by 1,143
Self-citation
Cited by
Multiple Imputation of Missing Values
Royston, P. (2004) · The Stata Journal: Promoting communications on statistics and Stata · doi:10.1177/1536867x0400400301 · Cited by 2,340
Self-citationDichotomizing continuous predictors in multiple regression: a bad idea
Royston, P., Altman, D. G., & Sauerbrei, W. (2006) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.2331 · Cited by 2,312
Self-citationPrognosis and prognostic research: Developing a prognostic model
Royston, P., Moons, K. G. M., Altman, D. G., & Vergouwe, Y. (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b604 · Cited by 1,172
Self-citationThe use of fractional polynomials to model continuous risk variables in epidemiology
Royston, P., Ambler, G., & Sauerbrei, W. (1999) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/28.5.964 · Cited by 1,066
Self-citationCleland, J. G. F., Bunting, K. V., Flather, M. D., Altman, D. G., Holmes, J., Coats, A. J. S., Manzano, L., McMurray, J. J. V., Ruschitzka, F., van Veldhuisen, D. J., et al. (2018) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehx564 · Cited by 659
Metadata
- Authors
- Sauerbrei, W., & Royston, P.
- Venue
- Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1999-01-01
- Volume
- 162
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 71-94
- ISSN
- 0964-1998 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-985X
- OpenAlex
- W1985851580
- Cited by
- 475
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 6.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Building Multivariable Prognostic and Diagnostic Models: Transformation of the Predictors by Using Fractional Polynomials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/1467-985x.00122
- The paper
- Sauerbrei, W., & Royston, P. (1999). Building Multivariable Prognostic and Diagnostic Models: Transformation of the Predictors by Using Fractional Polynomials. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-985x.00122
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.