Cited by 13Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques

Effects of categorizing continuous variables in decision-analytic models

Bentley, Tanya G. K., Weinstein, Milton C., Kuntz, Karen M.·2009·Medical Decision Making

Abstract

Purpose When using continuous predictor variables in discrete-state Markov modeling, it is necessary to create categories of risk and assume homogeneous disease risk within categories, which may bias model outcomes. This analysis assessed the tradeoffs between model bias and complexity and/or data limitations when categorizing continuous risk factors in Markov models. Methods The authors developed a generic Markov cohort model of disease, defining bias as the percentage change in life expectancy gain from a hypothetical intervention when using 2 to 15 risk factor categories as compared with modeling the risk factor as a continuous variable. They evaluated the magnitude and sign of bias as a function of disease incidence, disease-specific mortality, and relative difference in risk among categories. Results Bias was positive in the base case, indicating that categorization overestimated life expectancy gains. The bias approached zero as the number of risk factor categories increased and did not exceed 4% for any parameter combinations or numbers of categories considered. For any given disease-specific mortality and disease incidence, bias increased with relative risk of disease. For any given relative risk, the relationship between bias and parameters such as disease-specific mortality or disease incidence was not always monotonic. Conclusions Under the assumption of a normally distributed risk factor and reasonable assumption regarding disease risk and moderate values for the…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0272989x09340238

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bentley, T. G. K., Weinstein, M. C., & Kuntz, K. M.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Venue
Medical Decision Making
Published
2009-07-13
Volume
29
Issue
5
Pages
549-556
ISSN
  • 0272-989X (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-681X
OpenAlex
W2137253321
Cited by
13
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 3
FWCI
3.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Medical Decision Making (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (U01 CA88204, U01CA088204)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
Keywords
model bias, life expectancy gains, relative risk, disease incidence, disease-specific mortality, model complexity
MeSH terms
Decision Support Techniques, Markov Chains, Models, Theoretical, Cohort Studies

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